HomeMy WebLinkAbout32- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Specific Plan No. 95-01, General Plan
Amendment No. 95-03 and Environmental
Dept: Planning & Building Services Impact Report - International Trade Center
Date: February 15, 1996 MCC Date: March 4, 1996
¢"
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: N/A 15-0
qb -5-1
Recommended Motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Counci : )Ve -&I-Z
1. Adopt the resolution which certifies the Environmental Impact Report; adopts the Statements of
Overriding Consideration based on the appropriate findings pursuant to CEQA; adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring Program; approves Specific Plan No. 95-01 with recommended changes,
subject to the Conditions of Approval; and approves General Plan Amendment No. 95-03; as
contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report;
2. Adopt the resolution which certifies the Traffic Impact Analysis; and
3. That the first reading be waived and the ordinance adopting the San Bernardino International Trade
Center Specific Plan be laid over for final adoption.
Al Boughey
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.) N/A
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes: "-,50 q-
e� q& `5)
Agenda Item No.
3/411%
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 95-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 95082052)
REQUEST/LOCATION: A request for approval of the above referenced entitlements which
together, propose to amend the General Plan to establish a new land use category of
"International Trade Center", amend the land use map from PF, Public Facilities to ITC,
International Trade Center and amend the Circulation Element. The project includes the non-
airport portions of the former Norton Air Force Base.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Inland Valley Development Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: It was determined that the project would require
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during pre-application discussions with the applicant.
• The Initial Study was deemed complete by the City on August 15, 1995.
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was issued on August 28, 1995.
• The Notice of Completion (NOC) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
were released on November 21, 1995. The 45 day public review period began on
November 21, 1995 and ended on January 5, 1996.
• On January 18, 1996 the ERC recommended certification of the Final EIR.
• The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project, including
a recommendation for certification of the Final EIR and adoption of Statements of
Overriding Consideration, on February 6, 1996.
• The Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared pursuant to the Congestion Management Plan
and circulated to surrounding jurisdictions. The review period extended from December
8, 1995 to January 5, 1996. Comments were received, written responses provided to the
commentors and revisions made to the document as necessary.
PROJECT SUMMARY: The IVDA was formed by the cities of San Bernardino, Colton and
Loma Linda and San Bernardino County as a Joint Powers Authority authorized by state
legislation in 1990. Total acreage within the Specific Plan area is 616 acres, with the remainder
of the Base property, approximately 1300 acres, leased to the San Bernardino International
Airport Authority (SBIAA) for development of the International Airport.
The Specific Plan (SP 95-01) proposes to create eight land use subdistricts within the 616 acres
encompassed by this Specific Plan:
1
1. Commercial Neighborhood - 15 acres 5. Industrial - 291.2 acres
2. Commercial Tourist - 29.2 acres 6. Recreation Commercial - 14.7 acres
3. Office - 44.5 acres 7. Recreation Open Space - 25.6 acres
4. Research and Development - 54.5 acres 8. International Trade Center - 141.4 acres
The total area of the project is 616.2 acres with an allowable building square footage of
11,056,617 square feet. The Specific Plan is a policy document that will govern the distribution,
location, type, and intensity of land uses in the Specific Plan area (Exhibit D). It is also a
regulatory document in that it will regulate development on the site through the establishment
of permitted land uses, development standards and design guidelines.
The Specific Plan will be phased over a 40 year period. It is expected that the first phase of
development will continue through the year 2015 with the generation of approximately 11,000
jobs to replace those lost at the closure of Norton Air Force Base. In addition, approximately
15,000 are anticipated to be create for the remaining 25 years to project buildout. The actual rate
of development will depend upon real growth in the project area and the ability of the IVDA to
attract new businesses consistent with the Specific Plan.
A letter was received from Courtney Buse, after the public hearing, regarding the temporary use
of existing residential dorm buildings on site. The proposed Specific Plan prohibits residential
uses in those land use districts where the dorm buildings are located. The applicant has indicated
to staff that it is not looking to provide any additional residential on site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: There were no outstanding issues
identified by staff or the applicant. However, the following general topics were discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting.
= Several members of the public were concerned about the progress of the Air Force
cleanup on the former base and how that would affect surrounding properties.
Courtney Buse requested that the golf course be recognized as a primary use instead of
an interim use until industrial is built. He also objected to the siting of an interim
elementary school at the southwest corner of 3rd Street and Del Rosa Drive. His letters
are included within Attachment H to the Planning Commission staff report.
Refer to Exhibit 2, Planning Commission Staff Report for a full discussion of the project. The
Planning Commission ve`°ci 7 to 0 to recommend approval of Specific Plan 95-01, adoption of
General Plan Amendir '13, certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report,
adoption of the Stat( °rriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reps >mon the Findings of Fact contained in the February
6, 1996 staff report 'ton, Quiel, Schuiling, Stone, Strimpel, Thrasher
and Traver; Nays: ] it: None).
RECOMMENDA7 t the Mayor and Common Council certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Statement of Overriding Consideration, approve
the Mitigation Monitoring Program, approve Specific Plan No. 95-01, adopt General Plan
Amendment 95-03, and determine that the Traffic Impact Analysis complies with the Congestion
Management Plan.
Prepared by: Margaret Park, Associate Planner
For: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services
Exhibits: 1 - Site Vicinity Map
2 - Specific Plan Land Use Map
3 - Specific Plan and EIR Resolution
Attachments:
A-1 - Draft EIR (distributed on November 20, 1995)
A-2 - Final EIR*
B - Statement of Overriding Considerations
C - Mitigation Monitoring Program*
D - Draft Specific Plan (distributed November 20, 1995)
E - Recommended Specific Plan Changes*
F - Site Vicinity and General Plan Land Use Designation Map
G - General Plan Text Revisions
H - Circulation Element Revision Map
4 - Traffic Impact Analysis Resolution
Attachments:
A - Traffic Impact Analysis Report*
5 - Specific Plan Ordinance
6 - Planning Commission Staff Report*
7 - C & B Enterprises letter dated February 12, 1996
* Distributed under separate cover February 16, 1996.
3
a � r
IS dma
E}.. ►� m
C
Vex
w -o W
H
s IV
`° C
S
� � a
3Ad c
�o.�tn C7
,
1 •v
u
0
a
0
� a
aAd -
�ru-rx3.ts
,KVM t,
vO LdoN
21Q HSO�i"IIQ
O
>`•
};
mi
.......... .... :.:: ...... .. ....... . .
.......... .r..::.i:.w:..:•.::..... .::....:•::::rtijkii:r:.
a
{?:i
0.
L1:
21Q'rb'Ra
HAd aowo ddu
3
o :.
rj
2t F
z
I U Z
1
ax drat � V 1
N
is vwvav-wry
11111111111i�� V C
W
1 0. L) O. C Ct
cn
c >
o E °' o o. H cz
u o X a
i t o U c 0 _0 _c
0 0 0
03 lz 1 1'11'1,1' N LU 2
-p tl�. y C' 'O �ry/[' �V/ � (�
'11111111111 z Ea o W W
.., ...
W
�i 111u 'iii V♦
a1111
Z1. 11111 Ilt
1111
-j 111
1111
X1111111 r
3Ad dRIOIDIA '
'� 111
1111
1111
b
'f..1
�y
� t
o w 1'1'15'1'15'1
111555555'1
11111111111
III11111/11
11111111111
11111111111
IIIIIIIIIIII
111111111111
aAd✓NIMLS III 111111111
j 1111111111111
1111111Ir 111
ra 1 1111111111111
11It1111111111
r 1111111111111
111111111111111111
Illll 111111 lrl ll
11111111111111
1111111111111
111111111111
AT t 11111111111
dM
,'1111''1111'11'1'
e 55'15'
lul
•�IQ dS021'IIQ Yi iiiii
11111111111
111..
� �11111111111111111 11111111
1111/111111111111
' �.]t1111111111111111
.'
IS�)•���'V:�:::� 111111111 1111 11 1 1
;i •� m11111111111111r11 111111111 1
I�11111111111111111 1'1'11'1'1 i 1'1' '11
Q11111111111111111
" ' a 111111111111IIt11 �= 11111 111
; ; x11111111111111111
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1
:`�;:' 4111111 IIIIIIIII11111111 '��� '���
11111111111111111
=1'1'1�11111111111,1111111 1I1 1111
11 11 111115'1'11
55'da'IdI om3w 5' i iii 1 n 1 I
111111
1111
3Ad 9ONV39ddLL
N a
vFi OF ,�
v
Q2i dta'I p
Q
EXHIBIT 3
Specific Plan and EIR Resolution
CANDIDATE
FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FROM
IMPLEMENTING THE SAN BERNARDINO
INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Bernardino, in approving Specific Plan No. 95-01 (San Bernardino International
Trade Center Specific Plan) and General Plan Amendment No. 95-03, which will allow the applicant,
the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA), to reuse and redevelop approximately 616 acres
located within the boundaries of former Norton Air Force Base (Base) into commercial,
office/professional, and industrial uses makes the findings described below and adopts the statement
of overriding considerations presented at the end of the findings. Hereafter, the following documents
(Initial Study,Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments and
Appendices) will be referred to collectively as "the EIR".
B. PROJECT SUMMARY
B.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is a portion of former Norton Air Force Base which is located in the southern portion
of the City of San Bernardino. The site consists of two noncontiguous parcels of land located
immediately south of Third Street, east of Lena Road, west of Alabama Street/Palm Avenue and
north of Central Avenue and the Santa Ana River active flood plain. This area is part of the Old
Rancho San Bernardino, a Mexican land grant, and was not sectionalized by U.S. government survey.
B.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The IVDA was formed by the Cities of San Bernardino, Colton and Loma Linda and the County of
San Bernardino as a Joint Powers Authority authorized by state legislation in 1990. The IVDA is
authorized as a redevelopment agency and was created to serve as the primary reuse agency upon the
closure of the Base. The Air Force leased approximately 550 acres to the IVDA in 1994 with a
9 potential for fee ownership when the Air Force completes remediation of past hazardous
contamination of the soil and ground water, or has the remediation mechanisms in place for a year.
I Other property within the project area has been granted by the Air Force for public benefit uses.
These include Loma Linda Medical Facility, City of San Bernardino Public Park, Apostolic Church
Homeless facility, Community College facility, and a U. S. Forest Service facility. Total acreage
within the Specific Plan area is 616 acres, including the public benefit acreage identified above. The
remainder of the Base property, approximately 1,300 acres including and surrounding the Base
airport, was leased to the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) for development,
operation and support of the San Bernardino International Airport.
Attachment B
At the present time the property within the Specific Plan area is designated by the City General Plan
as Public Facility(PF). This designation was in recognition of the Air Force ownership and operation
of Norton Air Force Base. The proposed project will revise the General Plan and establish a set of
Specific Plan designations. The purpose of the General Plan Amendment is to revise the land use
designations for the property to be consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition, references to
Norton Air Force Base in 1989 General Plan will be revised to reflect its current status under local
control. In the Specific Plan policies are established for permitted uses, development densities and
general design standards. The Circulation Element of the General Plan will also be amended to
modify City roadway designations (Arterials, etc.) for the major roads providing access within the
Specific Plan area(see Figure 3.4.2 of the EIR). By implementing the proposed project, the General
Plan will be amended to be consistent with the Trade Center Specific Plan land use designations.
The Specific Plan creates eight different land uses within the Specific Plan area which is termed the
"San Bernardino International Trade Center" (SBITC). These uses include: Neighborhood
Commercial, 15 acres and a maximum of 228,690 square feet (sf); Tourist Commercial 29.2 acres
and 635,976 sf; Office 44.5 acres and 969,210 sf; Research & Development, 54.5 acres and
1,187,010 sf, Industrial, 291.2 acres and 4,7894,867 sf, Recreation Commercial, 14.7 acres and
158.994 sf;Recreation Open Space, 25.6 acres and 0 sf, and International Trade Center, 141.5 acres
and 3,081,870 sf. The acreage allocated to each use and the maximum square footage of buildings
allowed in each land use designation is identified in the previous list. The total area of the project
area is 616.2 acres and the total allowable square footage of structures according to the Specific Plan
is 11,056,617 sf, allocated as identified above.
The Specific Plan will be phased over a 40-year period. It is anticipated that the first phase of
development will continue through the year 2015 and this will bring approximately 11,000 new
employees to replace the estimated 10,000 employees lost when Norton closed. Over the remaining
25 years and additional 16,000 employees are forecast to be employed within the Specific Plan area.
Actual rate of development will depend upon real growth in the project area and the ability of the
IVDA to attract new businesses consistent with the Specific Plan.
In addition to the Specific Plan, the EIR evaluates the possible designation of the Specific Plan area
for a LAMBRA Site designation, a "Local Agency Military Base Recovery Area" and a Foreign
Trade Zone designation. Under the LAMBRA program, governmental constraints are reduced to
facilitate reuse by stimulating business and industrial growth. The LAMBRA designation has not yet
been granted to the Specific Plan area, but the potential for more rapid implementation of the Specific
Plan under the LAMBRA designation was evaluated as part of the EIR. The Foreign Trade Zone
designation will also facilitate development, specifically of the International Trade Center, if it
becomes a reality. This designation allows foreign or domestic merchandise to enter the area
designated as a foreign trade zone without formal Customs entry, or payment of Custom duties or
excise taxes. Trade zones provide opportunities to realize customs duty savings by zone users and
it provides a flexible method of handling domestic and imported merchandise.
2
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The entire administrative record, (including the Draft EIR, Technical Appendices and attachments,
public comments and City Staff reports, and these facts, findings and statement of overriding
considerations) serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The detailed
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the San Bernardino International Trade
Center Specific Plan Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the EIR and in the responses to comments
which are part of the EIR. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 6 of the
EIR. Evaluation of growth inducement is provided in Chapter 5 and unavoidable significant impacts
are described in Chapter 7 of the EIR. The following findings contain a summary of the facts used
in making determinations for each environmental issue addressed in the EIR and Initial Study.
The City received the project applications from the IVDA in June, 1994. A public scoping session
was conducted by the City on July 7, 1994. Issues were identified at the scoping session and were
subsequently incorporated into the content of the EIR. The preparation of the Initial Study was
delayed while the final Specific Plan text was completed. To assist with processing the CEQA
environmental documentation, the IVDA retained LSA Associates Inc. to prepare the Initial Study
for submittal to and independent review by the City of San Bernardino Planning and Building Services
Department Staff. After conducting an independent review of the Initial Study, the City released the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the Initial Study for public review and comment on August 28,
1995. Comments on the NOP were taken through September 26, 1995. A copy of the NOP, Initial
Study and comments submitted in response to the NOP are contained in Appendix A of the EIR. The
following list summarizes the project CEQA review milestones.
1. The Initial Study was deemed complete by the City on August 15, 1995.
2. The Notice of Preparation for the project was issued on August 28, 1995.
3. The Draft EIR was released for public review in November, 1995.
4. The public comment period began on November 22, 1995 and extended to January 6, 1996.
5. The City ERC reviewed the Draft EIR for adequacy on December 14, 1995
6. The City ERC reviewed the Final EIR for public release on January 18, 1996.
7. The Final EIR was released to interested parties and Responsible and Trustee Agencies that
commented on the Draft EIR in January, 1996.
8. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project, including a
recommendation for certification of the Final EIR and adoption of Statements of Overriding
Consideration, on February 6, 1996.
9. The Mayor and Common Council reviewed and approved the project, including certification
of the Final EIR and adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations on March 4, 1996.
D. FINDINGS
Presented below are the environmental findings made by the City of San Bernardino Mayor and
Common Council after its review of the documents referenced above and consideration of written
and oral comments on the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan EIR (Project EIR)
3
submitted to the Mayor and Common Council at a public hearing, including all other information
provided during the decision-making process. These findings provide a summary of the information
contained in the EIR, related technical documents, and the public hearing record that have been
referenced by the Mayor and Common Council in making its decision to approve Specific Plan No.
95-01 and General Plan Amendment No. 95-03, the permits required to implement the Project.
The EIR prepared for the project evaluated eleven (11) major environmental issue categories for
potential significant adverse impacts. These major environmental issue categories are: geotechnical
resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, land use/relevant planning,
hazardous waste/hazardous materials, transportation/circulation, noise, air quality, public services and
utilities and construction impacts. When cumulative impacts were included, the EIR reached a total
of 22 findings on environmental issues. Short- and long-term impacts and project specific and
cumulative impacts were evaluated for each phase of the proposed project. Some of the issue
categories contained several subissues which are summarized below. Of these I1 major
environmental categories, the Mayor and Common Council concur with the findings in the EIR that
the issues and subissues discussed below can be mitigated below a significant impact threshold, or
for those issues which cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, that overriding
considerations exist which make those impacts acceptable.
In addition to the I 1 major environmental issue categories evaluated in the EIR, eleven (I1) other
environmental issue categories(no grading on slopes greater than 15 percent, no development within
an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, no unique geological or physical features will be modified,
no areas will be developed that have a high potential for wind or water erosion, no areas will be
developed within a high wind hazard area, no areas will be developed within the foothill fire zones,
no impact on rail or air traffic, no creation of disjointed patterns of roadway improvements, no
creation of disjointed patterns of utility extensions, no obstruction of scenic views, and no
degradation of the existing visual/aesthetic setting) were found to be non-significant in the Initial
Study prepared for the proposed project. The Mayor and Common Council concurs with the findings
on these environmental issue categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the EIR).
Those environmental issue categories identified in the Initial Study as having no potential for
significant adverse impact, with or without mitigation, are described below in Section D.1. The
descriptions in Section D.1 include substantiation from the Initial Study. Each of the potentially
significant, but mitigable, effects of the proposed project identified in the EIR are described below
(Section D.2.), including substantiation from the EIR, associated documents and/or the hearing
record. Unavoidable(unmitigable) significant adverse impacts of the project are described in Section
E of this document. An analysis and comparison of the alternatives to the project are described in
Section F of this document. Project benefits are described in Section G. The balancing of benefits
and impacts and the statement of overriding considerations are presented and considered in Section
H of this document.
All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Initial Study are addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program which is included as part of the EIR. The monitoring program will ensure that
4
the measures identified in the EIR will be implemented in accordance with discussion in the EIR and
as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. These measures are within the jurisdiction
of the City to implement, but some measures may require other agencies to participate in the
monitoring program.
D.1. Non-Significant Impacts Identified in the Initial Study
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having no potential to cause significant
impact and were not carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation. In the following
presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential
significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the finding in
the administrative record, which primarily consists of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation and
responses, and technical appendices; any mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a
non-significant impact are identified; and finally, a discussion of the facts supporting the finding are
summarized.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that any mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the EIR) that will be implemented to mitigate the
impacts of this project have been incorporated into, or required of, the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more
significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report;
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes
have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency;and/or
C. Specific economic,social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources
Section 21081, that the following issues are non-significant because they have been determined to
have no potential to cause a significant impact or because mitigation measures will be implemented
as outlined below. The Mayor and Common Council further finds that no additional mitigation
measures or project changes are required to reduce the potential impacts discussed below to a level
of nonsignificance. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of
insignificance are as follows:
5
1. Earth Resources: Grading and Slope Modification
Potential Significant Impact: Grading activity on steep slopes(15%or greater)could cause significant potential for
slope failure or erosion during or following completion of grading.
Finding: The grading and slope modification issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The
analysis of grading and slope modification issues presented in the Initial Study demonstrated that no
potential for significant impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The grading and slope modification discussion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study(Page 5,items La and Lb)
indicates that project site slopes from north to southwest at less than 2% grade and proposed grading will leave the site with
the same general slope at completion of grading for individual. No cumulative grading impacts were identified on the area
within the Specific Plan property to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these
facts,the City concludes that potential grading and slope modification impacts from implementing the proposed project will
be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
2. Geologic Hazards: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Potential Significant Impact: The presence of an active fault within the project area could endanger property or,
human lives at the project site.
Finding: The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR.
The analysis of active fault issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant
impacts fi-om ground rupture will occur if the Specific Plan area is developed as proposed. No mitigation
is required.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone information in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 5,
item Lc)indicates that project site is not located within any Special Studies zone. No potential exists for the project area
to be exposed to ground rupture from a known active fault and the project cannot contribute to the cumulative exposure to
such hazards. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential ground rupture impacts from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
3. Modification of any Unique Geologic or Physical Features
Potential Significant Impact: Modification or loss of unique geologic or physical features would reduce the diversity
of these features in the region.
Finding: The unique geologic and physical features issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the
EIR. The finding regarding unique geologic and physical features issues presented in the Initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant impacts to such resources will occur if the project is developed
as proposed. No mitigation is required because no such resources exist on this totally disturbed site.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The unique geologic and physical features finding in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 5,item
l.d)indicates that project site has been utilized as an agricultural or military site since the turn of the century and no unique
6
geologic or natural physical features exist at the site based on field observation. No cumulative impacts to such features were
identified to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts, the City
concludes that potential impacts to unique geologic or physical features from implementing the proposed project will be
nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
4. Geologic Hazards: High Wind/Water Erosion Potential
Potential Significant Impact: If the site experiences high wind and/or water erosion potential,significant damage to
existing and future development could occur-on and off the site..
Finding: The wind and water erosion potential issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR.
The analysis of erosion issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant
erosion impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potential wind and water erosion presentation in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 5,item
Le) indicates that project site is not located within an area identified as having high potential for any type of erosion.
Further,the site is essentially flat with an approximate one-two percent slope to the southwest. No cumulative erosion
impacts occur in the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these
facts, the City concludes that potential erosion impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
S. Air Quality: High Wind Hazard
Potential Significant Impact: If the site experiences high wind potential,significant damage to the structures located
at the site could occur.
Finding: The wind erosion hazard issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The analysis
of high wind hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant high
wind damage impacts will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential wind hazard discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 6,item 2.c)indicates
that the project site is not located within a high wind hazard area as identified by the General Plan. Further,the site is totally
improved as a military base and will be redeveloped and reused as a part of the project. No cumulative wind hazard impacts
occur in the project area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts,
the City concludes that potential high wind hazards from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without
any mitigation or other changes to the project.
6 Land Use: Development within the Foothill Fire Zones
Potential Significant Impact: Existing or future facilities within the project area could be exposed to significant
foothill fire hazards
Finding: The exposure to foothill fine hazard issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The
analysis of the foothill fire hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant impacts from such hazards will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation
is required because no such fire hazards occur at this location.
7
Facts in Support of the Finding
►
The foothill fire hazard discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 9,item 6.c)indicates
that the project site is not located within any areas of the City designated as being exposed to foothill fire hazards. No
cumulative impacts to such features were identified to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse
impacts. Based on these facts,the City concludes that potential impacts from foothill fire hazards from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
7. Transportation/Circulation: Rail or Air Traffic
Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could adversely effect the rail and air traffic systems.
Finding: The rail and air traffic system issues are presented in the Initial Study, Appendix A of the EIR. The
analysis of rail and air traffic issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for
significant impacts to rail or air traffic will occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation
is required because no such rail or traffic systems occur within or will be affected by implementation of
the project.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The rail and air traffic discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 10,item 9.e)indicates
that the project site does not affect any areas of the City designated for rail or air traffic operations. No cumulative impacts
to such features were identified to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these
facts, the City concludes that potential impacts to rail and air traffic from implementing the proposed project will be
nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
8. Transportation/Circulation: Disjointed Pattern of Roadivay Improvements
Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could alter the pattern of roadway improvements in a manner
that could adversely affect traffic flow and area circulation.
Finding: The circulation pattern issues are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The analysis of
the circulation pattern issue presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant
impact_,to circulation by creating a disjointed pattern of roadway improvements will occur if the project
is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required because the existing road pattern will be retained
and enhanced.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The circulation pattern discussion in the Specific Plan and environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 11,
item 9.g) indicates that existing circulation pattern is consistent with the General Plan and it will be enhanced by the
implementation of the proposed project. No cumulative circulation pattern effects were identified on the property or in the
surrounding area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these facts,the City
concludes that potential circulation pattern impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without
any mitigation or other changes to the project because no disjointed patterns of circulation will be created.
9. Utilities: Disjointed Pattern of Utility Improvements
Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could alter the pattern of utility improvements in a manner that
could adversely effect the provision of utility services to future uses of the site and
surrounding area.
8
Finding: The utility issues are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The analysis of the utility
pattern issue presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts to the
pattern of utilities delivered to the site and surrounding will occur by implementing the proposed pattern
of utility improvements if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required because the
existing utility pattern will be retained and enhanced.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The utility pattern discussion in the Specific Plan and environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study(Page 12,item
9.b) indicates that existing utility pattern is consistent with the utility service plans and it will be enhanced by the
implementation of the proposed project. No cumulative utility service delivery effects due to disjointed patterns were
identified on the property or in the surrounding area to which the proposed project could contribute additional adverse
impacts. Based on these facts,the City concludes that potential utility pattern impacts from implementing the proposed
project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project because no disjointed patterns of utility
systems will be created.
10. Aesthetics: Obstruction of Important Scenic Views
Potential Significant Impact: The implementation of the proposed project could obstruct or eliminate important
scenic views from the project site.
Finding: The scenic view issues are presented in the Initial Study,Appendix A of the EIR. The analysis of scenic
views presented in the Initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impacts to scenic views will
occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required because the site is already
developed and due to existing landscaping and structures very few scenic vistas exist from or to the
project site.
Facts in Support of Finding
The scenic view discussion in the environmental evaluation section of the hnitial Study(Page 12,item 12.a)indicates that
the project site does not contain any scenic views and that existing views to the mountains are disrupted by existing
development and landscaping which will be retained or enhanced. No additional obstructions are forecast to occur and the
project is not forecast to contribute to cumulative changes in views through creation of obstructions. Based on these facts,
the City concludes that potential visual obstruction impacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant
without any mitigation or other changes to the project because no additional obstructions will be created at the project site.
11. Aesthetics: Degradation of the Existing Visual/Aesthetic Setting
Potential Significant Impact: The proposed project could cause degradation to the existing visual setting within the
project area boundaries.
Finding: The issues related to degradation of the existing visual setting are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix
A of the EIR, the Specific Plan, and the EIR, Section 2.4. The analysis of visual degradation issues
presented ir►the Initial Study and EIR concluded that no potential for significant adverse alteration of the
visual setting will occur if the project is developed in conformance with the design guidelines contained
in the Specific Plan. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion of potential degradation of the visual setting is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study(Page 12,item 12.b)and in the EIR in Chapter-2,Section 2.4. The analysis indicates that design guidelines contained
in the Specific Plan will ensure that the existing visual setting within the project area will not be degraded by future
9
development or reuse activities allowed by implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the project cannot contribute
additional or cumulative adverse changes in the visual setting. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential
alterations of the visual setting fi-om implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other
changes to the project.
This completes the discussion of those impacts that were determined to be nonsignificant without
mitigation in the Initial Study.
D.2. Non-Significant Impacts Identified in the EIR After Miti ation
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having potential to cause significant impact
and were carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues then were found to be
non-significant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that no significant impact
could occur or that mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be implemented which would
reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following presentation each resource issue
is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential significant adverse environmental effect
(Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the findings in the entire administrative record, which
is predominantly the EIR, technical appendices or responses to comments, is provided and any
mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a non-significant impact are identified; and
finally, a discussion of the facts supporting the finding are summarized. The mitigation measures are
presented below with the same numbers as identified in the EIR. All findings, mitigation measures
and facts are abstracted from the EIR, including the responses to comments provided as a separately
bound volume.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds that all mitigation measures
that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been incorporated into, or
required of, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that
no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has
been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one,
I or more, of the following findings:
I a. Changes or alterations have been required ul,or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report;
I b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and
such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency;
and/or
C. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
I
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources
Section 21081, that the following issues are non-significant based on the lack of potential for any
significant impact or based on implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below. The Mayor
I and Common Council further find that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are
I 10
I
required to reduce the impacts described below to a nonsignificant level. These issues and the
measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows:
1. Geotechnical Resources: Soils
Potential Significant Impact: The soils located at the project site may contain constraints that will limit future
development.
Finding: The site soil issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of soils in the EIR
determined that the Tujunga soils found on the project site do not pose any significant constraint to future
reuse and redevelopment. The analysis of the soil issue presented in the EIR concluded that no potential
for significant impacts due to site soil characteristics will occur if the Specific Plan area is developed as
proposed. No mitigation for site soil structural limitations is required because compliance with
applicable building codes will ensure site soils do not adversely affect future development. The only
impact with potential significance is the moderate to high wind erosion potential. This potential impact
is not considered significant after implementing the following mitigation measure. This measure is:
e
1.2 Grading plans shall indicate that wind erosion shall be minimized, particularly in areas
' underlain by Tt junga loamy sand,through application of dust palliatives during grading and
other consUzction or redevelopment activities.
' Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project soils are Tujunga loamy sand and
gravelly loamy sand. These soils have low water erosion potential particularly where slopes are gentle as occurs at the
project site. Tujunga soils have very few limitations on surface development, but mitigation is provided to control dust
s emissions from Tujunga loamy sand soil. The E1R concludes that the project and cumulative impacts of developing on these
soils are forecast to be nonsignificant without additional mitigation,except for fugitive dust during construction. The fugitive
dust impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed
' for this issue. The City concludes that existing building code requirements are sufficient to ensure that future structures
implemented under the Specific Plan will not be adversely impacted by the site soil. The recommended change in the project
is the responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
' 2. Geotechnical Resources: Seismicity
Potential Significant Impact: The regional seismic hazards may cause significant damage to existing and future
structures that are utilized through implementation of the Specific Plan.
Finding: The regional seismicity issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The seismicity evaluation
indicated that the project site lies in a high seismicity region and the use of existing structures and
development of new structures will occur in an environment that is likely to experience a significant
ground shaking during the life of the project. The analysis of the seismic issue presented in the EIR
concluded that the potential for significant seismic impacts will be precluded by implementing the seismic
' design requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC). No mitigation for regional ground
shaking is required because compliance with the UBC is mandatory and it is sufficient to ensure that
e retrofitted and new structures are protective of human health.
11
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that significant regional faults are located from 0.5
miles(Loma Linda Fault)to 2.5 miles(San Andreas Fault)of the project site. Based on this information,the project site is
designated as Seismic Hazard Zone IV in the Uniform Building Code and the site could be exposed to ground accelerations
ranging up to.8g. This potential level of ground shaking could cause structures and infrastructure to sustain significant
damage and expose individuals to significant hazard. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impacts of
developing at the project site are forecast to be nonsignificant without mitigation because compliance with the latest version
of the UBC in retrofitted and new structures will be protective of human health. The City concludes that the UBC
requirements are sufficient to ensure that the retrofitted and future structures protect human health fi-om unacceptable risks
and no additional mitigation is required.
3. Geotechnical Resources: Liquefaction
Potential Significant Impact: The local liquefaction hazards may cause significant damage to existing and future
structures that are utilized through implementation of the Specific Plan.
Finding: The liquefaction issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The liquefaction evaluation indicated
that the project site lies in a moderately high to high region of liquefaction susceptibility and the use of
existing structures and development of new structures will occur in an environment that may experience
a significant liquefaction of the underlying sediments during the life of the project. The analysis of the
liquefaction issue presented in the EIR concluded that the potential for significant liquefaction impacts
could significantly damage structures and expose humans to significant hazards if mitigation is not
implemented. The potential liquefaction impacts are not considered significant after implementing the
following mtigation measure. One mitigation measures has been identified in the EIR that changes the
project so that liquefaction hazards are reduced below a significant level. This measure is:
1-1 Prior to the issuance of building perinits,site specific geotechnical studies shall be prepared
for all new construction on the site and for seismic retrofitting of existing structures on the
site. The recointnendations of such site specific geotechnical studies shall be incorporated
into the design, engineering, and seismic retrofitting of all development, redevelopment of
existing structures, and other consttxiction projects on the site.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that at certain locations on the project site the ground
water table may be above 30 feet below the ground surface and combined with the sandy substrate,a moderately high to high
liquefaction potential is identified in the City General Plan(See Figure 48). Based on these data, the site could be exposed
to significant liquefaction,but this potential impact can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing
the mitigation measure proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and
this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation
monitoring requirements.
4. Geotechnical Resources: Subsidence
Potential Significant Impact: The regional subsidence hazards may cause significant damage to existing and future
structures that are utilized through implementation of the Specific Plan.
Finding: The regional subsidence issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The subsidence evaluation
indicated that the project site lies in an area potentially subject to subsidence from ground water removal
and the use of existing structures and development of new Stucture-,will occur in an environment that
12
could experience subsidence during the life of the project. The analysis of the subsidence issue presented
in the EIR concluded that the potential for significant subsidence impacts will be precluded by ground
water recharge programs being implemented by the San Bernardino Municipal Water District. No
mitigation for regional subsidence is required because of actions being implemented by other agencies
to recharge ground water and prevent subsidence. Such measures are sufficient to ensure that retrofitted
and new structures are exposed to structural failure due to subsidence.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that regional subsidence was a problem prior to 1972
when the ground water levels were dropping in the Bunker Hill Basin. Subsequent maintenance of ground water levels
through artificial recharge to the ground water table by the San Bernardino Municipal Water District has reduced or
eliminated the previous subsidence impacts. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impacts of developing at
the project site are forecast to be nonsignificant without mitigation because of existing recharge programs which have halted
subsidence within the region and project area. The City concludes that the existing recharge programs are sufficient to
ensure that the existing and future structures will be protected from adverse subsidence impacts and no additional mitigation
is required.
S. Geotechnical Resources: Dam Inundation
Potential Significant Impact: The dam inundation hazards may cause significant damage to existing and future
structures that are utilized through implementation of the Specific Plan.
Finding: The dam inundation issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The evaluation of
consequences from potential dam inundation indicated that the project site lies in an area potentially
subject to flooding fi-om failure of the Bear Valley Dam or the proposed Seven Oaks Dam. The analysis
of the dam inundation issue presented in the EIR concluded that the potential for significant flooding
impacts will be precluded by the limited area exposed to flooding(south of the runway)and the recent
seismic retrofit of the Bear Valley Dam and the design of the Seven Oaks Dam. No mitigation for dam
inundation impacts is required because actions being implemented by other agencies and the lack of
exposure to flooding within the project area. Such measures are sufficient to ensure that significant areas
of the site are not exposed to flood hazards if dam inundation occurs in the future.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that a small potential for flooding from dam inundation
does exist on the southern portion of the project site within the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Ana River. Seismic retrofit
of the Bear Valley Dam and seismic design for the Seven Oaks Dam minimize, but do not eliminate, potential dam
inundation hazards. The EfR concludes that the project and cumulative impacts of developing at the project site are forecast
to be nonsignificant without mitigation because of the limited area exposed to hazards and the seismic design of the two
upstream dams. The City concludes that the existing exposure is below a threshold of significance and will ensure that
existing and future structures will be protected from adverse flooding impacts and no additional mitigation is required.
6 Geotechnical Resources: Water and Wind Erosion
Potential Significant Impact: The potential for water and wind erosion at the project site may cause significant
damage to the project site.
Finding: The site water and wind erosion issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion
of soils, under issue 1 above, indicated that the Tujunga soils found on the project site do not pose any
significant water erosion hazard due to high percolation and flat topography. The analysis of the water
13
and wind erosion issue presented in the EIR concluded that no potential for significant impacts due to
water erosion will occur and no mitigation is required.. The only impact with potential significance is the
moderate to high wind erosion potential. This potential impact is not considered significant after
implementing the following mitigation measure which is a change to the proposed project. This measure
is:
1.2 Grading plans shall indicate that wind erosion shall be rniniinized, particularly in areas
underlain by Tt junga loamy sand, through application of dust palliatives during grading and
other construction or redevelopment activities.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project soils are Tujunga loamy sand and
gravelly loamy sand. These soils have low water erosion potential particularly where slopes are gentle as occurs at the
project site. Tujunga soils do have a high wind erosion hazard and mitigation is provided to control dust emissions from
Tujunga loamy sand soil. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impacts of developing on these soils are
forecast to be nonsignificant without additional mitigation,except for fugitive dust during construction. The fugitive dust
impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this
issue. The City concludes that water erosion hazard of the onsite soils is less than significant and that mitigation can reduce
impacts from potential wind erosion hazards to a nonsignificant level. The recommended change in the project is the
responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
7. Geotechnical Resources:Mineral Resources
Potential Significant Impact: The project may preclude use of significant mineral resources located within the
project area.
Finding: The mineral resource issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The evaluation of
consequences of implementing the proposed project on mineral resource values indicated that the project
site lies in an area with high potential for sand and gravel resources. The majority of these resources are
located on adjacent property, not the area within the IVDA Specific Plan, and the site is already
developed which currently prevents access to such resources. The analysis of the mineral resource issue
presented in the EIR concluded that the potential for significant impact to such resources does not exist
because these resources are already not accessible for production and the proposed project will not alter
this circumstance.No mitigation for potential mineral resource exploitation is required because such use
of the resources are not feasible under present circumstances.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the alluvial deposits underlying a small portion
of the IVDA Specific Plan area has a high potential for developable construction aggregate resources. The EIR concludes
that the project and cumulative impacts of developing at the project site are forecast to be nonsignificant without mitigation
because these resources are not accessible under the present state of development at the project site. The City concludes
that the existing site development does preclude development of potential mineral resources and the proposed project impact
does not alter this circumstance and is,therefore nonsignificant. No mitigation is required.
8. Water Resources: Sitiface Water Flood Hazard
Potential Significant Impact: Portions of the project site are subject to significant flood hazards and implementation
of the proposed project could contribute to downstream flooding.
14
Finding: The surface water flood hazard issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The flood hazard
evaluation indicated that the project site lies within a flood hazard area and could generate increased
surface runoff under the Specific Plan. The analysis of the flood hazard issue presented in the EIR
concluded that the potential for significant exposure to flood hazards and the generation of surface runoff
could significantly damage structures and expose humans to significant hazards if mitigation is not
implemented. The potential flood hazard impacts are not considered significant after implementing the
following mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the
project so that flood hazards are reduced below a significant level. This measure is:
2.3 Prior to approval of a building permit far any new construction within the Specific Plan, the
applicant shall submit to the City the following documentation fi-om a qualified engineer
regarding on-site and off-site drainage:
a) After grading, the proposed firstPoor building elevations are located outside the
100 yearflood plain.
b) The on-site drainage systeur can accommodate drainage flows fi•out the project site
per standard City requirements (i.e., all flows contained within storm drains or
within street curb lines).
C) The off-site drainage system will not be adversely affected by the project. This can
be demonstrated in one of the following ways:
1) The project will not result in any net increase in off-site stortn flows.
2) The downstream flood control system can accommodate any increase in
storm flows that will occur as a result of the project.
3) Any increase in scorn flows from the project site are off-set by decreases
from other sites within the Specific Plan that drain to the same off-site
facilities.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that a limited portion of the project site is within the
100-year flood plain which will affect future uses. The existing golf course falls within this area and mitigation is required
to ensure that any future industrial uses in this area are not adversely impacted by flooding. In addition,the construction
of the Seven Oaks Dam is forecast to reduce the 100-year flood hazard area and the project site may not be subject to
flooding associated with the 100-flood in the future. The project area is already developed with urban level uses, but
contains a substantial amount of landscaped area. Future development could increase impervious ground cover and cause
increased stormwater runoff into downstream flood control facilities. Based on these data, the site could be exposed to
significant flood hazards or expose downstream areas to greater flood hazards. This potential impact can be reduced below
a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this issue. The recommended
change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review
and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
9. Water Resources: SuiJace Water Quality
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to downstream degradation
of water quality.
15
Finding: The surface water quality issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The water quality
evaluation indicated that the utilization of the project site has not historically degraded surface water
quality and future uses should not cause this condition to change. However,increased concentrations of
pollutants in nonpoint source runoff could degrade surface water quality in the future as a result of
implementing the Specific Plan. The analysis of the water quality issue presented in the EIR concluded
that the potential for significant water quality degradation does exist if mitigation is not implemented. The
potential water quality impacts are not considered significant after implementing the following mitigation
measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the project so that water
quality degradation potential is reduced below a significant level. This measure is:
2-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that on-site
stonnwater discharge will be mitigated sufficiently to maintain compliance with the City's
NPDES Storm Water Discharge Requirements. A Notice of Intent(NOI)shall be filed with
the state Water Oitality Control Board for construction disturbing five acres or more of land.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the quality of upper Santa Ana River basin flows
is considered excellent. Testing of on-base effluent during periods of storm runoff has also shown that water quality is
generally good,with small quantities of oil and other materials that rarely exceed water quality standards. The incremental
increase in non-point source pollution is not forecast to cause degradation of surface runoff below the existing thresholds
based upon implementing the proposed mitigation. Based on these data, the site could contribute to cumulative downstream
water quality degradation fi-om future development under the Specific Plan,but this potential impact can be reduced below
a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this issue. The recommended
change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review
and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
10. Water Resources: Ground Water
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed proiect could contribute to cumulative demand for
ground water resources.
Finding: The ground water issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The ground water evaluation
indicated that implementation of the project is not forecast to significantly increase the cumulative
consumption of ground water. The analysis of ground water supplies concluded that the future
consumption forecast could be significant and relies upon additional importation and recharge of
supplemental water. Mitigation is provided to minimize future consumption through incorporation of
water conservation equipment. The potential ground water impacts are not considered significant after
implementing the following mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR
that changes the project so that ground water impact potential is reduced below a significant level. This
measure is:
2-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all new
consh7lction complies with the latest requirements of the Uniform Building Code regarding
water conservation.
Facts in Support of Finding
I
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that ground water provides most of the water supply
(83%) for the project site and valley residents. Ground water quality is generally good, with the exception of shallow
contamination by volatile organic compounds,including the TCE plume under the project site related to historic Air Force
uses. Project water demand is forecast to remain below preclosure base water demand until the year 2004. By 2015,project
16
i
demand would reach about 5,600 acre feet per year. The 1.5 percent increase in total demand created by the project in 2015
was determined not to be project or cumulatively significant based on the ability to offset this demand with supplemental
water. Based on these data, the site could contribute to cumulative demand for ground water resources from future
development under the Specific Plan,but this potential impact can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility
of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance
with mitigation monitoring requirements.
11. Biological Resources
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could disturb or eliminate identified listed
plant and animal species and their habitat.
Finding: The biological resources issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Appendix D. The
biological resources evaluation indicated that implementation of the project has the potential to
significantly impact important biological resources identified within the project area. The analysis of
biological resources concluded that future development,at certain locations within the project area which
contain significant biological resources, could cause the loss of individuals and habitat that would be
considered significant. Mitigation is provided to eliminate or reduce this impact to a nonsignificant
level. The potential biological resource impacts are not considered significant after implementing the
following mitigation measures. Two alternative mitigation strategies may be employed to minimize
project impacts to biological resources. The first strategy would(measure 3-1)avoid sensitive habitat
areas and the second strategy would be to offset losses of biological resources in a manner that reduces
impacts of development to below a level of significance. Eight mitigation measures have been identified
in the EIR that change the project so that biological resource impacts are reduced below a significant
level. These measures are:
3-1 The project shall be redesigned to avoid all or portions of the following sensitive biological
elements on site.
Industrial Area-Noa•theast(.Sd)
The boundary along the extreme eastern and southern end of this land use area should be
redrawn to align with the edge of the concrete pad around the existing building. The
proposed southern boundary also extends into the Santa Area River woolly star habitat. This
boundary line should be redrawn fia•ther to the north.
Industrial Area-Southern (Jb)
i
The proposed industrial design will include various sites along the southern boundary that
impact a section of the Santa Ana River and the alluvial fan scrub habitat. There are at least
Aw areas that clearly impact sensitive biological resources. The first area extends beyond
the existing boundaries ies at the northeastern part of the golf tour se. The second area extends
down tle road leading from the golf course to Central Avenue.
These extensions should be redrawn to match the existing boundaries of the golf course and
should not extend south beyond the northern levee of the Santa Ana River.
17
Industrial Area-Southwestern(Sc)
The third site is at the extreme southwestern corner of the site,south of Central Avenue. The
southern half of this land use area impacts a number of sensitive biological resources. This
land use area should be eliminated.
Recreational Open Space Area(7a)
The proposed design may or many not impact the unnamed tributary to Warm Creek.
Recommended mitigation is to ensure that project design does not require alteration or
elimination of this unnamed drainage. If redesign is not possible, then mitigation for the loss
ofjurisdictional wetland will be required.
International Trade Center(8)
The proposed design may or many not impact the unnamed tributary to Warm Creek.
Recommended mitigation is to ensure that project design does not require alteration or
elimination of this unnamed drainage. If redesign is not possible, then mitigation for the loss
of jurisdictional wetland will be required.
3-2 At the time of individual environmental assessments for all fnrture project phases in all areas
except the International Trade Center,the City,in consultation with a qualified biologist,shall
determine whether additional spring surveys (April and MaO are needed for individual
project phases that are affected by construction and development activities. The purpose for
subsequent surveys is to cor f nn the presence of any of the species listed below. These species
may not have been previously identified either due to the timing of the surveys or because
adequate surveys were not completed. The surveys, if needed, shall concentrate on areas
within proposed limits of grading that may support targeted sensitive plant and animal
species. The results of these surveys shall be documented in a report submitted to the City.
The surveys shall focus on, but not be limited to, the following species:
• Slender-horned spinefower
• Parry's spinefower
• Western burrowing owl
• Los Angeles pocket mouse
• Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse,
• San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat.
In the event that these species are not present, or if they will not be significantly impacted by
the development due to project design, no mitigation will be required The following actions
will be required if one or more of these species is detected during the surveys.
For each sensitive plant species found within areas subject to project impacts, a detailed
seeding/planting program shall be implemented.
If agreeable to the resource agencies, the recommended mitigation shall be the
transplantation and/or collection of seed from existing populations for ultimate use on a
selected mitigation site. Specifications related to seed collection,planting, maintenance and
performance standards should be developed in accordance with consultation with these
agencies. Transplantation of the two spinejlower species would not be suitable because these
species are annual.
18
For each sensitive wildlife species, the level of impact will need to be determined. If a
determination is made that the impact will be significant, it is recommended that mitigation
take the form of the replacement of lost habitat as determined appropriate by the CDFG and
USFWS. Transplantation of individual animals is not recommended as a mitigation measure
due to its very low success rate.
3-3 Prior to the development of arty areas containing Riversidian Alluvial Fan Scrub, a mitigation
plan shall be developed and approved by the resource agencies with jurisdiction over this
habitat. Mitigation for this habitat will take the form of designated protected area either on
or off site to be set aside in perpetuity. The designation and protection of these areas shall
be discussed with the CDFG.
If off-site mitigation is not possible, replacement of lost habitat shall be required, to the
satisfaction of the CDFG.
3-4 Prior to the development of any areas containing wetland or riparian resources, a mitigation
plan shall be developed and approved by resource agencies with jurisdiction over this habitat.
Mitigation for the loss of weilan&riparian habitat types will be provided by replacement with
habitat of equal or greater area and value. Conceptually, this would entail the development
of riparian habitat at a selected site that does not currently support wetland1riparian or other
sensitive habitats. Species that should be considered for use in the riparian replacement site
include native species such as mulefat, willows, and cottonwood trees and appropriate site-
native undersimy species.
An integrated riparian habitat mitigation plan will be developed as part of the more detailed
pernnitting/agreement processes with the Corpus and CDFG and will include input from the
USF VS and CDFG. Permit conditions that will be set forth by the Corps as parr of the 404
pernit process and by the CDFG in a Streambed Alteration Agreement will make habitat
nhitigatiorr for these areas a legally binding obligatiorn. The current policies of these agencies
require projects to incorporate measures to replace or avoid riparian and wetland habitat so
as to achieve no net loss of these sensitive resources.
The riparian habitat mitigation plan submitted to the Corps and CDFG for approval will
follow the "Habitat Afitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines" established by the
Corps, Los Angeles District in June, 1993. These guidelines include, but are not limited to,
the following items:
• A clear statement of the goals of the proposed mitigation plan that establishes the
amount and type of habitat to be established.
• The plat shall provide a description of each strategy proposed for establishment of
replacement habitat and a brief explanation of the rationale behind each mitigation
strategy to be employed.
• Graphic exhibits will be included that precisely depict the location(s)and area(s)
where habitat establishment shall be undertaken. Exhibits shall display engineer's
plans for an' eanhwork required, including grading and contouring, and any
hydrological management devices, such as drop sirnnciures, weirs, etc., that may be
installed.
19
• Plant palettes for the riparian habitat will be selected to replicate as closely as
possible the native constituents of existing cottonwood/willow riparian woodland
and inule/at scrub communities resent within the impacted areas on the site.
I P P
• The Plan shall name the responsible parties and provide general implementation
specifications establishing the mitigation project schedule and site preparation
requirements. Specifications for the establishment of appropriate native vegetation
shall include tithing ofplanting,standards for plant materials,planting techniques,
spacing, irrigation(if any),site maintenance,supervision and documentation, and
performances standards.
• The plan shall describe planned maintenance activities on the planting site(s),
including irrigation system inspection,plant replacement,pest control, and removal
Of weeds and trash.
• 'the plan shall set forth the monitoring methods and pet fornhance criteria to be used
to detennine whether the pan has achieved its goals. Success criteria will establish
the target fiutctions and values the mitigation site habitat is intended to provide.
Final mitigation site design plans will be subject to agency approval. Implementation of the
measures outlined above, which is expected to be required as part of the project permit
conditions, will mitigate the project's impacts on both Streantbed Resources and Riparian
Habitat to below a level of significance.
3-5 Prior to development in areas of sensitive biological habitat, a qualified biologist or other
natural resources specialist(e.g., arborist)shall be retained as a construction monitor, to
ensure that incidental construction impacts on biological resources are avoided, or limited
to a minimum. Monitoring should occur in Ihose sections(?f the aviation air port related use,
golf course/industrial and industrial areas that are currently undeveloped open space.
Typical responsibilities of the construction monitor include the following.
• Monitor shall attend at least one meeting prior to the pregrade conference(s)to ensure that
tinting/location of construction activities do not con flict with mitigation requirements(e.g.,
seasonal surveys for plants, reptiles, etc.).
I
20
• Prior to commencement of grading:
1. Review/designate the construction area in the field with the contractor and the
designated inspector in accordance with the final grading plan approved by the
appropriate agency. Haul roads and access roads should be sited within grading
areas identified in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)documentation.
If activities outside these limits are necessary, they should be evaluated for
consistency with the CEQA documentation.
2. Supervise cordoning of preserved natural areas that lie outside grading areas
identified in CEQA documentation (e.g., with temporary fence posts and colored
rope). Fence posts or similar obstructions should be located outside of active
streambed channels.
3. Conduct afield review of the staling(to be set by the sinvevoi)designating the limits
of all construction activity. Any construction activity areas immediately adjacent to
riparian areas orothersensitive resources may be fogged or temporarily fenced by
the monitor, at his discretion.
4. Conduct an educational session with the contractor(including field superintendent
and other key construction personnel) and designated inspec•to•, describing the
importance of restricting work to designated areas. The monitor should also discuss
procedures for minimizing har•ni/har•assnnent of wildlife encountered during
construction.
• Construction personnel should be prohibited from entry into areas outside the designated
contspvction area,excepifornecessmy construction related activities,such as surveying. All
such construction activities should be coordinated with the monitor.
• The monitor should be present periodically on the site during construction to coordinate and
monitor compliance with the above provisions.
• Upon completion of construction, the contractor should be held responsible to restore any
haul roads and access roads that are outside of approved grading limits. This restoration
should be done in consuhation with the monitor.
• If construction activities are conducted during the nesting/breeding season (typically
February through Juh), the constrtiction monitor should, at the pre-grade conference for
each phase of grading, determine: 1)the need for, and 2)the fi•egnencv of monitoring for
nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird"Treaty,Act and/or Endangered Species Act. if
monitoring is determined to be necessary,the qualified specialist should monitor construction
activities in the designated areas. Arty bird nests discovered should be reported to the
appropriate agency,project applicant,and any necessary State or federal agencies. Removal
of observed nests should be done only in compliance with the federal A/igraiory Bird Treaty
Act and Endangered Species Act, or applicable permits.
3-6 Prior to development in areas adjacent to sensitive biological habitat, evidence shall be
presented y the project applicant, to the Director of Planning and Building that prospective
occupants and users of r edevelopment areas have been clearly,advised of the implications of
human activity adjacent to natural open space areas. To accomplish this, the project
21
applicant,or agents and assigns,should prepare a written statement that includes discussions
of the following types of issues:
• Warnings of dangers and nuisances posed by wildlife that may forage at the
development edge(e.g., coyotes in the Santa Arta River).
• Responsibilities and benefits associated with development near a wildland area.
• Fuel modification and fire management Plan as approved by the Fire Chief Fuel
modification area typically extend outside proposed development boundaries.
Additional impacts to sensitive resources ntav occur as a result.
• Developmentofa lighting plan to minimize light spillage in areas adjacent to open
space areas, including the golf course to be approved by the City Engineer.
• Eliminate use of rodenticide.
This statement should be written to foster an appreciation of native ecosystems, and to identify
measures that should be taken to minimize conflicts between wildlife, domestic animals,and
humans.
3-7 Prohibit expanded use beyond current levels of rodenticides in or near areas of potential
habitat for San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and other sensitive rodent species.
U'ltere practicable, reduce or eliminate existing use of rodenticides near these areas.
3-8 Prior to approval of anv landscape plans, evidence shall be presented to the Director of
Planning and Building Services that the project applicant, or agents and assigns, have
prepared landscape design guidelines that describe adverse ecological effects associated with
non-native,invasive plants. These guidelines should be provided to all proposed land users
and used during the review antd approval process for all landseciping plans. Disposal of
cuttings of any ornamental plants in on-site or off-site open space areas should be strictly
prohibited.
Use of non-native,invasive plants should be controlled, as described in the following sections.
Prohibited Species
Non-native plants that are potentially,invasive via airborne seeds, or that are particularly
d fficult to control once escaped,should be prohibited for all parts of the project, including
the golf course. Such species include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Tree-of-heaven(Ailanthus spp.)
• Giant reed(Arundo donax)
• Garland chnysanthemtun (Chiysanthemunt coronarium)
• Pampas grass(Coriaderia spp.)
• Brooms(Cytisus spp.)
• Bermuda butter cup(Oxalis pes-caprae)
• Fountain/Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum spp.)
• German ivv(Senecio mikanoides)
• Periwinkle (Vinca spp.)
22
• Tamarisk(Tamarix spp.)
• Sprangle top(lamarck-ia aurea)
Permitted Species
Some invasive, exotic species are known to be controllable in well managed habitat preserves. Such
species may be used in project landscaping and golf course plantings, if a qualified biologist approves
the species and proposed use, and the proposed use of herbicides,pesticides and rodenticides. Non-
native, invasive species that could be used under these circumstances include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Hottentot-fig (Caipobrotus edulis) (Should be prohibited in areas adjacent to
natural open spaces.
• Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) (Hybrid Bermuda grass, which is sterile or
produces only sterile seed,should be permitted on the golf course fairways, tees,or
greens, when surrounded by an appropriate buf/er a an apron of non-invasive
grass species(to prevent vegetative spread into natural areas.))
• Afyoponan (14,oporuin laetum)
• Pepper Trees(Schinus spp)
• Cape honeysuckle(Tecomaria capensis) (Should be prohibited in areas adjacent to
natural open spaces.).
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will not adversely affect
wildlife movement but it does have a potential to significantly affect sensitive species(Santa Ana River woolly star,Slender-
horned spineflower(listed as endangered plants),Arroyo southwestern toad, Western spadefoot toad, Southwestern pond
turtle,Western burrowing owl,Delhi sands flower loving fly, Yuma myotis,foraging raptors and many other species). In
addition,sensitive plant communities, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub and Wetland/riparian,exist on-site and may be
adversely impacted by the proposed project. The development impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan
were determined not to be project or cumulatively significant based on the ability to avoid or offset these impacts by
implementing the proposed mitigation measures. Based on these data,the implementation of the Specific Plan could cause
significant adverse effects on biological resources, but this potential impact can be reduced below a significant level in
accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project
are the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
12. Cultural Resources
Potential Significant Impact: hnplementation of the proposed project Could disturb or eliminate identified cultural
resources and their context.
Finding: The cultural resources issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The cultural resources
evaluation indicated that implementation of the project has no potential to significantly impact important
cultural resources because none are identified within the project area. The analysis of biological
resources concluded that future development has no potential to cause the loss of resources that would
be considered significant. During the comment period, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
submitted comments expressing concern over potential Native American cultural resources that may be
located within the project area. Mitigation was developed to eliminate or reduce any impact to such
resources to a nonsignificant level. The potential cultural resource impacts are not considered significant
23
after implementing the following mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the
EIR that changes the project so that cultural resource impacts are reduced below a significant level. This
measure is:
4-1 In the event archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be stopped
immediately or redirected until a City approved archaeologist is retained by the applicant to
evaluate the significance of the find pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. If remains are found to
be significant,they shall be subject to f n4her testing, excavation/mitigation,preservation in-
situ,or avoidance,subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building Services. If
such significant resources include prehistoric native American artifacts, the San Manuel Band
of Mission Indians will be notified and afforded an opportunity to provide input to the
management plan.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will not adversely affect
cultural resources because no sensitive cultural resources have been identified within the project area. No archaeological
or historical resources were identified during extensive surveys of the property by the Air Force. However,during the Draft
EIR comment period,the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians indicated that important Native American resources may be
located within the project area and that special care must be taken to protect and preserve such resources. The potential
cultural resource impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan were determined not to be project or
cumulatively significant based on the ability to avoid or offset these impacts by implementing the proposed mitigation
measure. Based on these data,the implementation of the Specific Plan could cause significant adverse effects on cultural
resources,but this potential impact can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation
measure proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure
will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring
requirements.
13. Land Use: Population and Employment
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed pro.iect could cause negative increases in population.
Finding: The employment and population issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The employment
evaluation indicated that implementation of the project will significantly benefit regional employment
and will increase the regional population. These changes are considered to be a significant benefit to the
Inland Empire area. The analysis of employment and population concluded that Iuture development has
no potential to cause the effects on population and employment that would be considered significant. The
potential population and employment impacts are not considered adverse;they are considered significant
and beneficial. No mitigation is required because of the beneficial effects of these impacts.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will create 26,000 jobs over
the 20-40 year period of implementation. This is 17,000 more jobs, 2.7 times,than existed at the Base prior to its closure.
The project is forecast to increase area population by about 29,500 persons at project buildout,which is about five percent
of population forecast for the Inland Empire in 2015. No cumulative adverse population or employment impacts are forecast
to occur from implementation of the proposed project. Based on these facts,the City concludes that potential population
and employment impacts from implementing the proposed project will be beneficial and not significantly adverse without
any mitigation or other changes to the project.
24
14. Land Use: On-site Land Use Compatibility
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could cause incompatible land uses within the
project area.
Finding: The on-site land use compatibility issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Specific
Plan. The on-site compatibility evaluation indicated that implementation of the project will result in
intemally compatible and supportive land uses. The analysis of on-site land use compatibility presented
in the EIR concluded that land uses on-site are internally complementary and support adjacent uses,
including the airport.The potential on-site land use compatibility impacts are not considered significantly
adverse. No mitigation is required because of the compatible land use balance contained n the Specific
Plan for the project site.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will create a balance of
office,commercial,industrial and open space uses within the 616 acre project area. The project encompasses 15 acres of
neighborhood commercial use,29.2 acres of tourist commercial use;44.5 acres of office use; 54.5 acres of research and
development uses;291.2 acres of industrial use; 14.7 acres of recreation commercial use;25.6 acres of recreation open space
use;and 141.5 acres of international trade center use. These uses are balanced throughout the project site in a manner to
support and not conflict with adjacent uses. No cumulative adverse on-site land use compatibility impacts are forecast to
occur from implementation of the proposed project. Based on these facts,the City concludes that potential on-site land use
compatibility impacts fi-om the proposed project will not be adverse without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
IS. Land Use: Off-site Land Use Compatibility
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could cause incompatible land uses in areas
adjacent to the project site.
Finding: The off-site land use compatibility issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Specific
Plan. The off-site compatibility evaluation indicated that implementation of the project will result in
potential incompatible land uses along the west side of the project site and in the area adjacent to the
Santa Ana River on the southern portion of the project site. The analysis of o$'-site land use compatibility
presented in the EIR concluded that land use compatibility off-site does have a potential for significant
incompatibility if mitigation is not implemented. The potential off site land use compatibility impacts are
not considered significantly adverse after implementing the following mitigation measures. Two
mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project so that the land use
compatibility effects of the project are reduced below a significant level. These measures are:
5-1 Prior to the approval of building permits for any Specific Plan land uses within 100 feet of
existing residential uses(inchnding on-site residential units utilized f or on interim period), the
project proponent shall lake measures to ensure the compatibility of the proposed use with
the existing residential uses. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to:
• Establishment of a mininnrtn setback of S0 feet from any proposed buildings to
existing residential units.
• Restrictions on the use of residential streets by industrial/commercial traffic
The measures tit,ill be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director, City of San
Bernardino(or his designee)prior to the approval of building permits for such uses.
25
5-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any industrial uses in parcels abutting the Santa
Ana River,IVDA shall prepare and the City shall review and approve a set of detailed design
standards for development along the river edge to ensue that the proposed uses will not
adversely affect the recreational, water resource, or biological resources along the river.
Said standards shall establish the following:
• Minimum building setbacks from riverbanks.
• Minimum setbacks from biologically sensitive areas.
• Architecture treatments for facilities adjacent to the river to ensure visual
compatibility.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will create a potential for
incompatibilities on the west side of the project site where residential and mixed land use's may be in conflict with the
industrial trade center and office and neighborhood commercial uses. The industrial land uses proposed along the Santa Ana
River are also identified as having a potential for significant land use conflicts. No cumulative adverse off-site land use
compatibility impacts are forecast to occur from implementation of the proposed project as no other land use changes are
proposed to occur. Based on these data,the City concludes that potential off-site land use compatibility impacts from the
proposed project may occur, but this potential impact can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the
responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority
and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
16 Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Materials
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could be adversely affected by existing
contamination and future use of hazardous materials allowed by the project could
cause future contamination.
Finding: The hazardous waste/hazardous materials issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the
Specific Plan. The existing contamination from past use of hazardous materials and inadequate
management of hazardous waste affects portions of the project site and could significantly affect future
uses allowed by the Specific Plan. Future use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes
on within the project area will be controlled by existing city,state and federal laws and regulations that
strictly control the storage, generation and disposal of such materials. Implementation of the project
may result in significant adverse impacts from existing site contamination if mitigation is not
implemented. No mitigation is required for future activities involving hazardous materials and wastes
because the existing regulatory structure is adequate to ensure significant adverse impacts do not result
fi-om this use. The potential hazardous material/waste impacts are not considered significantly adverse
after implementing the following mitigation measures. Two mitigation measures have been identified in
the EIR that change the project so that the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste
effects of the project are reduced below a significant level. These measures are:
6-1 Prior to approval of anv building permit or grading permit within the project area, the
applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning and Building Services Director, City
of San Bernardino, that the Air Force has released the site for development, and that the
proposed development will not hinder efforts to clean up the TCE plume.
6-2 Prior to the approval of any building permit or grading permit within the project area, the
applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning and Building,S'ervices Director, City
26
of San Bernardino, that an individual site survey meeting City of San Bernardino
requirements for hazardous waste has been conducted
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the proposed project will create a potential for
exposure of future uses to contaminated sites that were a result of Air Force use of the site. The Air Force has identified 22
contaminated sites and continues to examine portions of the former base for additional contamination. The Master Lease
which transferred the property to the IVDA commits the Air Force to remediate any Air Force caused residual contamination
exceeding regulatory standards that is discovered on the property. The IVDA has a program to examine sites as they are
developed and monitors activities as new ground is disturbed within the project area. The EIR concluded that no cumulative
adverse hazardous material or waste impacts are forecast to occur from implementation of the proposed project if the
mitigation proposed is implemented for past contamination. Based on these data,the City concludes that potential existing
hazardous material/waste impacts to future uses of the project site may occur,but this potential impact can be reduced below
a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. No significant
hazardous material/waste impacts are forecast to occur fi,om future activities because of the existing strict regulatory structure
in place for such materials and wastes. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these
measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation
monitoring requirements.
17. Traffic: Existing Phis Project Traffic
Potential Significant Impact: Additional traffic generated by the implementation of the Specific Plan could
cause significant deterioration of traffic flow on the affected circulation
system.
Finding: The project traffic impact issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) contained in a separate volume. The discussion of the increased traffic from the
implementation of the Specific Plan indicated that the project could cause or contribute to significant
deterioration of traffic flow at twenty-one intersections through the area. With recommended changes,
the proposed project does not contribute to further deterioration in traffic flow on the freeways. The
potential traffic flow impacts at these intersections are not considered significant after implementing the
following mitigation measures. Two mitigation measures were identified in the EIR that change the
project so that the prgject's contributions to significant impact at the affected intersections and freeways
can be reduced to a nonsignificant level. These measures are:
7.1 Anv Specific Plan project shall contribute, on a frir share basis, to mitigation of traffic
impacts. Contributions shall be by one of the following:
a) Implementation of the recommended intersection, traffic lane or freeway
improvements listed in the EIR and 714.
b) Payment of dollar equivalent of the improvements to specific fiords for said
improvements.
C) Implementation of additional capacity on parallel routes to offset impacts on
existing routes. Such additional capacity shall be approved by the City prior to
implementation credits being allowed
The City recognizes a total of 46,520 vehicle trips from the redevelopment status of the Base.
Intplenientation or mitigation measures shall not be required until this level of trips is
generated from the Specific Plan area. Exception to the above will apply where intersection
27
or lane configurations operate below level of service D.
The SBITC will implement an aggressive TDM program throughout the SBITC to further
mitigate potential vehicle trip impacts of the project, but will rely on actual field conditions
and counts to determine level of service and intersection capacity.
7-2 Prior to the approval of more than 100,000 gross square feet of new development on the site,
the IVDA shall adopt a specific Transportation Demand Management(TDM)program to
reduce the overall trip generation of the project. Elements of the TDAY shall include measures
to implement the following:
a) Establishment of an on-site transportation center to distribute information on
alternative transit modes and facilitate car-pooling.
b) Development of a Master Plan of bus stops and construction of bus tarn-outs within
the project street system.
C) Provision of preferred parking for car-pools f w a/1 project sites.
d) Provision of bicycle commuting facilities such cis bicycle racks and/or lockers.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project has a potential to cause or contribute
to significant deterioration of traffic flow at twenty-one intersections and portions of freeways from combined existing
traffic,cumulative growth in traffic,and the proposed project. The TIA,Tables O and P, indicate that all intersections and
freeway segments will operate at an acceptable LOS with the project after implementing identified mitigation. The EIR
concludes that the project will cause significant traffic impacts without implementing the measures identified above which
reference the specific mitigation contained in the TIA. With mitigation,the project traffic impacts can be reduced so no
traffic flow is forecast to experience significant deterioration. Based on these data, the City concludes that the potential
project traffic impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures
proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and these measures will
be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring.
18. Noise: Constt~ttctioti Activity
Potential Significant Impact: Construction activities from demolition,grading and paving activities could
cause noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds at adjacent
residences.
Finding: The construction noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The noise evaluation
indicated that project constriction activities could exceed the City's noise thresholds for noise sensitive
uses,such as the adjacent residential area to the west of the project site. The potential construction noise
impacts are not considered significant for any of the three construction activities after implementing the
following mitigation measures. Six mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change
project so that noise levels can be reduced to a nonsignificant level. These measures are:
8-1 Consauction shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.in. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays(8:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m.on Saturdat). No consh7tction shall take place on Sundays or federal holidays.
8-2 Construction equipment (both fixed and mobile) shall be equipped and maintained with
properlyfttnctioning mufflers.
28
8-3 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical fi-orn noise sensitive
area.
8-4 Teniporary noise ban•iers shall be used when construction is to be petformed within 450feet
of residential units or 250 feet of commercial units.
8-5 Low noise level equipment shall be utilized.
8-6 Noisv activities shall be planned to occur together, whenever practical.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will cause none levels at adjacent
residences to exceed 65 dB which is a sufficient change in the noise environment to be a significant impact. The analysis
in the EIR concluded that aggregate construction activities may be as high as 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The
distance from the source area to the 65 dBA L,noise contour would be 446 feet for an eight hour construction day under
this circumstance. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact to the noise environment will be significant
without mitigation. With mitigation, the construction activity noise levels can be reduced below 65 db L, which is
considered a nonsignificant impact. Based on these data,the City concludes that the potential construction noise impacts
can be maintained at a nonsignificant level or can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementation
of the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the
City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and during mitigation
monitoring.
19. Noise: Aircraft Generated Noise
Potential Significant Impact: Noise from aircraft operations at the San Bernardino International Airport
could adversely affect existing and future land uses.
Finding: The an"crafl operation noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The noise evaluation
indicated that aircraft operation activities at the Airport are not forecast to exceed the City's noise
thresholds for uses proposed within the project area. The analysis of aircraft noise presented in the EIR
concluded that no significant aircraft noise/land use conflicts would occur if the project is implemented.
No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will not cause noise levels at the noise
sensitive portions of the project site to exceed 65 dB L,,,,. This is not a sufficient change in the noise environment to be a
significant impact.No cumulative adverse incompatibility due to noise is forecast to occur if the project is implemented as
proposed. Based on these data,the City concludes that the potential aircraft operation noise levels can be maintained below
the compatibility threshold for the uses contained within the Specific Plan without any mitigation.
20. Public Services and Utilities: Police Services
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative
demand for police services.
Finding: The site police service issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of police
services indicates that the project will contribute to potentially significant demand for police service. The
analysis of the police service issue presented in the EM concluded that no potential for significant impacts
29
due to increased demand by the project will occur if required mitigation is implemented. Two mitigation
measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project so that police service impacts of the
project are reduced below a significant level. These measures are:
10-1 The project proponent shall pay the project's fair-share portion of fees to the City to cover
additional capital improvement costs for police protection and fire prevention services.
Facilities may be provided in lieu of payment of fees. The appropriate fee share offacilities
will be specified in a project finance plan to be approved by the City. Until such time as a
project finance plan is approved,project specific agreements between the City and IVDA may
be negotiated to ensure adequate facilities for police and fire services.
10-2 Project design plans will incorporate security features, such as adequate night lighting
around building exteriors(per City standards), low-vegetation landscaping and clear drive-
up areas for emergency vehicles. The adequacy,of the security features will be reviewed as
Part of the plan check process;the project design must be approved by the City as part of the
project review process(prior to issuance of building permits).
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project demand for police services has a
potential to contribute significant demand for police services. The level of projected development may require additional
officers and support personnel in the Police Department. Based on these data,the City concludes that potentially significant
police service impacts may occur but this impact can be reduced to a nonsignificant level in accordance with implementing
the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City
and the mitigation measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance
with mitigation monitoring requirements.
21. Public Services and Utilities: Fire Protection
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative
demand for fire protection.
Finding: The site fire protection issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of fire
protection services indicates that the project will contribute to potentially significant demand for such
service. The analysis of the fire protection service issue presented in the EIR concluded that no potential
for significant impacts due to increased demand by the project will occur if required mitigation is
implemented. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the project so that fire
protection service impacts of the project are reduced below a significant level. This measure is:
10-1 The project proponent shall pay the project's fair-share portion of fees to the City to cover
additional capital improvement costs for police protection and fire prevention services.
Facilities argy be provided in lieu of payment of fees. The appropriate fee share of facilities
will be specified in a project finance plan to be approved fw the City. Until such time as a
project finance plan is approved,project specific agreements benveen the City and iVDA may
be negotiated to ensure adequate facilities for police and fire services.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project demand for fire protection services
has a potential to contribute significant demand for such services. The level of projected development may require additional
infrastructure,officers and support personnel in the Fire Department in order to meet future demand by the project. Based
on these data,the City concludes that potentially significant fire protection service impacts may occur but this impact can
30
be reduced to a nonsignificant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The
recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented by
the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
22. Public Services and Utilities: Water Supply
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative demand for
water supply resources.
Finding: The water supply issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the Specific Plan. As noted in
the ground water evaluation(Issue#10),implementation of the project is not forecast to significantly
increase the cumulative consumption of ground water. The analysis of water supply concluded that the
existing infi-astiucture is inadequate to meet future consumption and could be significant. Mitigation is
provided to ensure that infrastructure is expanded to meet future water flow and delivery requirements.
The potential water supply impacts are not considered significant after implementing the following
mitigation measure. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the project so
that water supply impact is reduced below a significant level. This measure is:
10-2 Specific Plan development that would exceed nine million square feet (combined with
development on the SBIA site)will require evaluation of the system in place at that time to
determine the need for any additional water service facilities. If additional facilities are
required, the IVDA will coordinate with the Cihv of San bernardino Municipal Water
Department to specify the additional water demand to be generated by the development
expansion, and the extent of any additional system facilities that would be required The
1 D.4 will secure coy f rmation of service capability from the Water Department to serve the
additional development above nine million square feet, but not exceeding l l million square
feet as specified in the Norton Air Force Base A/aster Plan.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that ground water provides most of the water supply
(83%)for the project site and valley residents. Project water demand is forecast to remain below preclosure base water
demand until the year 2004. By 2015,project demand would reach about 5,600 acre feet per year. The water supply
infrastructure is considered adequate to serve nine million square feet of office,commercial and industrial uses,but beyond
this level the system is considered inadequate without augmentation. Based on these data, the proposed project could
contribute to cumulative demand for additional water supply infi-astucture,but this potential impact can be reduced below
a significant level in accordance with implementing the mitigation measure proposed for this issue. The recommended
change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review
and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
23. Public Services and Utilities: Wasleivater
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative
demand for wastewater treatment capacity.
Finding: The project wastewater issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of
wastewater service capacity indicates that the project will contribute to potentially significant demand for
such service and will require the expansion of a short segment of pipeline delivery capacity. The analysis
of the wastewater service issue presented in the EIR concluded that no potential for significant impacts
due to increased demand by the project will occur if required mitigation is implemented. Three mitigation
measures have been identified in the EIR that change the project so that wastewater service impacts of
31
the project are reduced below a significant level. These measures are:
10-4 Development in excess of nine million square feet(combined with development on the SBIA
site)or that generates wastewater over one million gallons per day in the connection line to
the City's sewerage system will require evaluation of the systenr in place to determine the
potential need for additional sewer service facilities. In the event that the project system
requires expansion,the IVDA will arrange with the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department to provide for the necessary additional facilities. The IVDA will secure
confirmation of service capability fi•orn the Department to serve the additional development
beyond nine million square feet as specified in the Norton Air Force Base Master Plan and/or
one million gallons per day in the City connection line.
10-5 Engineering analysis will be conducted and design plans prepared for a gravity flow
sewerage systenr adequate to contain and distribute the projected development wastewater
flow fom the golf course area. The system will be designed to connect with the balance of the
sewerage ststein on site,as well as the City sewer lines off site. Plans will be submitted to the
City public(Boils Department for review drn•ing the plan check period. Approval of the final
design plans shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for planned development
in the golf course area(Area 20).
10-6 A Facilities Repair and maintenance Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City of San
Bernardino rtlunicipal If,'ater Department. The plan shall specify repair and preventative
maintenance tasks for the water lines and facilities, such as clearing out of existing pipes,
repairing line breaks,videotaping conditions inside the pipes, and relining the existing pipes
tivhen appropriate during project phasing. The plan will identifi,the responsible party for task
implementation,frequency of maintenance and oversight reviewleheckfor adequacy. The
plan will be approved by the City prior to issuance o/f roje ct building permits.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project demand for wastewater management
services has a potential to contribute significant demand for such services and infrastructure. The level of projected
development may require installation of additional relief sewer lines over an estimated 2,800 feet to accommodate future
growth projected for the Specific Plan area. Based on these data,the City concludes that potentially significant wastewater
management service impacts may occur but this impact can be reduced to a nonsignificant level in accordance with
implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the project are the
responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval
authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
24. Public Services and Utilities: Solid Waste
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative
demand for solid waste capacity.
Finding: The project solid waste issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of solid
waste capacity issues indicates that the project will contribute to potentially significant cumulative
demand for such capacity. The analysis of the solid waste capacity issue presented in the EIR concluded
that no potential for significant impacts due to increased demand by the project will occur if required
mitigation is implemented. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes the
project so that solid waste capacity impacts of the project are reduced below a significant level. This
measure is:
32
10-7 Provision of solid waste collection services for development beyond nine million square feet
within the project will be evaluated by the IVDA in coordination with the City. Prior to
construction of phases of the project that would generate solid waste service demand above
the capacity of existing resources, the IVDA will implement the City's adopted program to
reduce solid waste production,pursuant to A.B. 939.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project demand for solid waste capacity has
a potential to contribute significant demand for such capacity. The project at buildout would generate approximately 36 tons
of trash per day which represents an increase of approximately 2.4 percent over the City's projection without base reuse.
Based on these data,the City concludes that potentially significant solid waste capacity impacts may occur but this impact
can be reduced to a nonsignificant level in accordance with implementation of the mitigation measure proposed for this issue.
The recommended changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented
by the City as part of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
25. Public Services and Utilities: Electricity, Nattn•al Gas, Telephone and Cable Television
Potential Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative
demand for utility(electricity,natural gas,telephone and cable television)capacity.
Finding: The project utility issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The discussion of utility
infi-astucture issues indicates that the project will contribute to potentially significant cumulative demand
for infrastructure capacity. The analysis of the utility infrastructure capacity issue presented in the EIR
concluded that no potential for significant impacts due to increased demand by the project will occur if
required mitigation is implemented. One mitigation measure has been identified in the EIR that changes
the project so that utility infrastructure capacity impacts of the project are reduced below a significant
level. This measure is:
10-8 During the project design review process(each phase as submitted),final design plans will
be submitted to all pertinent utility providers (e.g., Southern California Edison, The Gas
Company,General Telephone)for review and deter Mirtation(?f ability to service the proposed
project. Receipt of written verification J•orn the utility providers of ability to serve the project
will be required prim to issuance of building permits.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project demand for utility infrastructure
capacity has a potential to contribute significant demand for such capacity. The project at buildout would generate demand
for utility connections that exceed the cun-ent capacity of the infi-astucture serving the base. Based on these data,the City
concludes that potentially significant utility infrastructure capacity impacts may occur but this impact can be reduced to a
nonsignificant level in accordance with implementation of the mitigation measure proposed lbr this issue. The recommended
changes in the project are the responsibility of the City and the mitigation measure will be implemented by the City as part
of its review and approval authority and in accordance with mitigation monitoring requirements.
This completes the discussion of those impacts that are either non-significant without mitigation as
outlined in the EIR or can be reduced to an insignificant level with implementation of recommended
mitigation measures in the EIR.
33
E. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the San Bernardino International Trade Center
Specific Plan Project (proposed action), three environmental categories were found to have
unavoidable, significant adverse environmental effects. The following environmental issues addressed
in the EIR were forecast to experience significant impacts: cumulative operational noise, construction
air emissions, and project cumulative air emissions. The potential impacts for the above issues were
concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance
by the proposed project changes and mitigation measures (i.e., the impacts are unavoidable). Thus,
the potential for significant effects to occur for these issues would continue to exist (at least for the
short-term) regardless of whether or not the City or other agencies implement the project changes
and mitigation measures contained in the EIR.
These three impact categories, the impacts they will incur, and the mitigation measures (project
changes) designed to minimize them to the degree feasible are summarized in the following
discussion.
1. Noise: Cumulaiive Traffic Noise
Significant Unavoidable Impact: Traffic from development and operation of land uses permitted by the
Specific Plan and facility activities is forecast to cause cumulative traffic
noise levels to exceed City significance thresholds along routes to the project
site.
Finding: The cumulative traffic noise issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and the TIA,compiled
in a separate volume. The cumulative traffic noise evaluation indicated that future full development
activities at the site will contribute to cumulative traffic volumes that will cause noise levels to exceed the
65 dB noise compatibility threshold along several streets providing access to the facility. The EIR
concluded that the project operations would contribute to the cumulatively significant traffic noise on
these access roads because the noise compatibility threshold will be exceeded by the cumulative traffic
forecast. The EfR does not identify mitigation measures that can reduce cumulative traffic noise impacts
because the residences are already established along these routes and no feasible means of mitigating
noise impacts has been identified.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will contribute to cumulatively
significant noise levels along San Bernardino Avenue,Tippecanoe Avenue,Alabama Street,and Greenspot Road east of
SR-30. This project plus cumulative traffic causes a sufficient change in the background noise environment to be a
significant impact along these routes. Pages 4.8-11 through 4.8-17 and Figures 4.8.3 and 4.8.4 EIR list the forecast noise
level change that results in the forecast significant noise impact. Based on these data, the City concurs that the potential
Specific Plan buildout contribution to cumulative traffic noise impacts should be considered an unavoidable significant
adverse impact at the residences located adjacent to these sheets. No additional mitigation measures were identified in the
responses to comments that need to be considered at this time. Therefore, the City finds that no mitigation measures are
available to reduce the cumulative traffic noise increase to a level below the City's noise compatibility standard of 65 dB Ld,.
Based on these facts,the City concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on
the local noise environment and that the project contributes to cumulative noise impacts that remain unavoidable and
acceptable due to overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this document.
3 4
2. Air Resources: Construction Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact: Construction emissions fi-om demolition,grading and paving activities could
exceed regional thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality
degradation.
Finding: The construction air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and Appendix G of the EIR. The
air resources evaluation indicated that project construction emissions foi-carbon monoxide(CO),reactive
organic compounds(ROC),sulfur oxides(SO.)and particulate matter(PM,,)were found,on average,
to be above the thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)without specific mitigation. After mitigation, the construction emission impacts
remain potentially significant. Nine mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that change the
project,but these measures do not reduce emissions so that they fall below significance thresholds. These
measures are:
9-1 Prior to the issuance of airy grading or building permits, the project sponsor shall submit to
the City a mitigation plan for both exhaust and dust impacts. No construction will be
conducted prior to acceptance of this plan. The following(or•other suuiiable measures)shall
be included in this plan. The City shall verify use of the plan measures during regular site
inspections.
9-2 Grading plans shall indicate that on-site grading will be limited to a total of six acres per day.
9-3 Grading plans shall indicate that the contactor shall be responsible for ensuring that trucks
used fin-hauling excess material are covered to minimize loss of material,flagmen assist
trucks moving Into traffic, and peak hoar truck travel is nnnlmlzed.
9-4 The dust control plan shall be included as part c f the grading plan and shall speck steps that
would be taken to comply with SCAOMD Rules 402 (Nuisance) and 403 (Fugitive Dust).
11easu res outlined in the plan shall include but not be limited to: daily watering ofgraded
areas, washing of equipment tires before leaving the construction site, and use of SCAQMD
approved chemical stabilizers or soil binders.
9-5 The grading plan shall indicate that during construction, the contractor shall discontinue
constluuction activities during first and second stage smog alerts, or when wind gusts exceed
25 miler per hour.
9-6 The grading plan shall indicate that all constr Uction equipment shall be maintained in good
operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor will ensure that
all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained.
9-7 Prror to approval of a grading per7nit,the contractor.shall provide evidence shot low emission
mobile constriction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found
to he it feasible for the project.
9-8 Roadway and parking lot plans shall indicate the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic
cement, where feasible. The use of cutback asphalt should be avoided whenever possible.
9-9 iPhere feasible and/or applicable, the project proponent shall: 1) specify construction
materials with natural finishes that do not require coating; 2) where coatings are to be
applied, specify the rise of high-vohunre low-pressure or lnarmal application of paints and
35
coatings on structures;3)use pre--frruslhed or pre-priiued and sanded wood molding and trim
products and pre-primed wallboard;and 4)specify the use of non-polluting power-coating
operations and power-coated metal projects.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit more CO,ROC,SO,and
PM,than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin. Table 4.9-E
in the EIR list the forecast emissions and all of the above emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds after
mitigation. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative impact of these air emissions are forecast to be significant.
Mitigation is provided to reduce total emissions and potential for nuisance from fugitive dust. The mitigation measures for
the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR and contained within the SCAQMD Air
Quality Attainment Plan and the District's"CEQA Handbook". No additional mitigation measures were identified in the
responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and ail of the changes to the project that are proposed to reduce
air emissions are considered feasible. Therefore, the City finds that the available mitigation measures are insufficient to
reduce construction air emission impacts from project construction activities below a significant level. Based on these facts,
the City concludes that all feasible ntigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implemented by the
City and Air Quality Management District as part of Its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. The City
concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the SCAB's air quality;that
project air emissions have been substantially lessened to the degree feasible;and that the project specific air quality impacts
remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to overriding considerations as
outlined at the end of this document.
3. Air Resources: Cumulative Operation Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact: Cumulative long-term emissions from operating equipment and delivering
trailers and containers to the Intermodal Facility could exceed regional
thresholds and contribute to continued significant air quality degradation.
Finding: The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 and Appendix F of the EIR. The
discussion in the text of the EIR indicates that the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB)experiences violations
of the federal and state Ozone standards. The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents
indicates that the project will emit more mobile Source related emissions than the thresholds of
significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin. Table 4.9-H in the EIR
lists the forecast emissions and these emissions substantially exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds. The EIR concludes that the cumulative air emissions are forecast to be significant. Given the
existing air quality standard violations for ozone and particulate matter and the non-attainment status of
the SCAB for these pollutants,the City concurs that the operational emissions should be considered an
unavoidable significant adverse impact. The EIR further determined that the project will implement the
Regional Grog-vth Management Plan,the Regional Mobility Plan and the Congestion Management Plan,
i.e.it conforms with the Air Quality Management Plan. The mitigation measures for the proposed project
incorporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR and contained within the SCAQMD Air Quality
Attainment Plan and the District's"CEQA Handbook". No additional mitigation measures were identified
in the responses to continents that need to be considered at this time and all of the changes to the project
that are proposed to reduce air emissions are considered feasible. Three mitigation measures have been
identified in the EIR that change the project,but these measures do not reduce emissions so that they fall
below significance thresholds. These measures are:
9-10 Prior to the approval of more than 100,000 square feet of cumulative development, the project
sponsor shall develop a coninmter center, which would include such information as: bus and
rail transit schedules/maps; telephone numbers for the designated transportation
coordinator; Onntiu•ans bus route and Afetrolinl; schedrdes; ridesharing promotional
36
material; bicycle route and facility it formation; location of and directions to, the San
Bernardino Metrolink station schedule;and location of on-site vanpool/carpool spaces.
9-11 Configure parking areas to minimize traffic interference by providing adequate ingress and
egress.
9-I2 Prior to the approval of a building pennit,the project sponsor shall demonstrate that building
and landscape plans include the following:
Thennal load reduction through the use of automated time clocks and/or occupant
sensors,
• The utilization of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods.
• The utilization ofenergv efficient heating, air conditioning, water heaters,furnaces,
boiler units, etc.
The incorporation of passive solar design and solar heaters, where appropriate.
Landscape with native, drought resistant species to reduce water consumption and
provide passive solar benefits
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit more CO,ROC,SO,and
PM,than the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin. Table 4.9-F,
G and H in the EIR list the forecast emissions and all of the above net emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance
thresholds after mitigation. The EIR concludes that the operational cumulative impact of these air emissions are forecast
to be significant. Mitigation is provided to reduce total emissions and potential for nuisance from fugitive dust. The
mitigation measures for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measures identified by the EIR and contained within
the SCAQMD Air-Quality Attainment Plan and the District's"CEQA Handbook". No additional mitigation measures were
identified in the responses to comments that need to be considered at this time and all of the changes to the project that are
proposed to reduce air emissions are considered feasible. Therefore,the City finds that the available mitigation measures
are insufficient to reduce construction air emission impacts from project construction activities below a significant level.
Based on these facts,the City concludes that all feasible mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will
be implemented by the City and Air Quality Management District as part of its conditions of approval and mitigation
monitoring program. The City concludes that the proposed project has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on
the SCAB's air quality;that project air emissions have been substantially lessened to the degree feasible;and that the project
specific air quality impacts remaining after implementing mitigation measures are unavoidable and acceptable due to
overriding considerations as outlined at the end of this document.
This concludes the discussion of all potential adverse impacts attributable to the implementation and
operation of the Specific Plan.
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project
alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(d)). CEQA requires
that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project
that: (1) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project, and (2) may be
37
feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors involved.
The basic objectives of the IVDA Specific Plan, proposed project (reuse of the non-airport portions
of former Norton Air Force Base) include the following: replace the 10,000 jobs that formerly existed
at Norton with job generating uses and quality projects; integrate the Norton Air Force Base site back
into the physical structure of the community, and create a development plan that will have the effect
of generating financial reinvestment on site and within the community. The central purpose of the
proposed project is to initiate reuse of this property to create a more valuable asset to the City of San
Bernardino and surrounding cities.
The EIR considered a total of three alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives were
defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives designed to reduce the identified significant
impacts of the project: air quality and noise. One of these alternatives was considered to be
technically feasible and was carried forward as a possible reasonable alternative to the proposed
project in the EIR.
The three alternatives that were subject to evaluation in the EIR with the proposed action are:
a. No Build
b. No Project
C. Reduced Density Alternative
An additional alternative that was considered and screened from further study is the location
alternative and the rationale for eliminating this alternative from further consideration is outlined
below.
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is capable
of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)(3)). The following discussion provides the City's
evaluation of each of these alternatives in determining whether they are feasible alternatives to the
proposed action(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)) and whether an alternative can eliminate
or substantially lessen significant impacts described in this document for the proposed action. A
discussion of the alternative eliminated from further consideration is also provided.
1. Alternative Location
One of the alternatives identified in the State CEQA Guidelines that would nonnally be considered is an alternative location.
However,in this instance the pro ject is,of necessity,site specific because Norton Air Force Base is the only location in San
Bernardino and the surrounding area where a military installation(Air Force Base)has been closed under the Base Closure
Act. The project site represents the single location requiring demolition in support of site remediation and reuse. Since it
is not possible to implement this project at any other location,this alternative,alternative location,is eliminated from further
analysis and will not be given further consideration because it is not an alternative that can "feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project." (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d))
38
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council has reviewed the EIR discussion of alternative location and concurs
with the findings regarding the lack of suitability of an alternative location to the proposed project. No alternative location
has been identified at any time during the review process for the project and no alternative locations are known that could
meet the project's objectives. Therefore,the Mayor and Common Council concur with the conclusion in the EIR that an
alternative location for the proposed project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because no
alternative location can feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project.
2. No Build Alternative
The no build alternative assumes that the project site is maintained in its current caretaker status and that only the public
benefit transfers continue in operation. Under this alternative all of the impacts associated with jobs (all public service,
utility,traffic,air quality and stone runoff,etc.)would not occur;the potential biological impacts would be eliminated. The
no build alternative was rejected by the City because maintenance of the property in unoccupied condition would be
inconsistent with the objective of reuse of the base;the site would not be integrated into the surounding community;would
not facilitate approved development of the airport;and the regional jobs/housing balance would not be improved.
Based on these facts,the Mayor and Common Council rejects as infeasible the no build alternative to the proposed project.
This alternative does not meet all of IVDA's identified objectives even though it would eliminate the significant impacts of
the proposed project. Therefore,the Mayor and Common Council concur with the conclusion in the EIR that the no build
alternative was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because this alternative cannot feasibly meet the
objectives established for the proposed project.
3. No Project
The no-project alternative would eliminate the proposed land use designations and allow future development to occur under
the"Public Facilities"designation which does not impose any allowable uses or controls on development. This alternative
would not eliminate the potential adverse impacts because it could allow undefined development of public facilities at the
site with no limit on the number of public facilities,with no intensity or other land use controls. The impacts forecast to
occur if the proposed project is developed would not be eliminated and could increase. The City considers this alternative
environmentally inferior because the City would lose development policies and controls contained in the Specific Plan for
the project area,the integrated ti-amework for future development,including minimization of land use conflicts contained
in the Specific Plan would be lost;and if development did not occur,the site would deteriorate and diminish in development
value.
The EIR concluded that the no-project alternative is not necessarily environmentally superior to the proposed project. The
no project alternative is not capable of feasibly attaining the basic objectives of the project which were outlined above.
Reuse of the blighted property would not occur,safety and trespass issues would not be eliminated,and the property would
not support the IVDA's plan to reuse the project site to replace jobs lost when Norton closed. Therefore,the Mayor and
Common Council concur with the conclusion in the EIR that the no project alternative Ilor the proposed project was properly
eliminated from further detailed consideration because it is not capable of accomplishing the identified project objectives.
4. Reduced Density Alternative
This alternative was specifically formulated to eliminate violation of noise impacts and the air quality significance thresholds
related to construction and operation emissions. Construction activities would have to be restricted to a few hours per day
to reduce construction emissions below the significance threshold. Operations would have to be curtailed to one twentieth
of the level of development proposed to reduce air emissions to nonsignificant levels. The irony is that such reductions in
density of the Specific Plan would reduce the project's conformity with the Regional Comprehensive Management Plan
because the jobs generated by the proposed project would be reduced and the vehicle miles traveled within the SCAB would
be forecast to increase. These alternative modes of operation are non-functional because they would eliminate the project's
ability to meet project objectives. it is assumed that job growth would be displaced elsewhere in the SCAB with no actual
39
reduction in air emissions. In fact,the air enussion would likely increase if the proposed project is not implemented because
the jobs envisioned for the site would be located elsewhere in the Basin.
This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project for noise impacts only,but it would not meet
project objectives because it is unlikely that it would result in successful reuse of the project site. It would not eliminate air
quality impacts(in fact it could increase emission substantially by increasing vehicle miles traveled within the basin).
Based on these facts, the Mayor and Common Council reject as infeasible the reduced size project to limit air quality
emissions and cumulative noise impacts. This alternative does not meet the project objectives and it would not eliminate
significant impacts,other than cumulative noise.Therefore,the Mayor and Conunon Council concurs with the conclusion
in the EIR that the reduced size project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because this alternative
cannot feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed project.
This concludes the discussion of project alternatives to the San Bernardino International Trade Center
Specific Plan Project.
G. PROJECT BENEFITS
The benefits from approving the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Project are
related to the reuse of a closed military installation, former Norton Air Force Base; enhancement of
the City's competitive position through successful implementation of new job producing activities in
the Inland Empire; increasing jobs and economic activity at a location which previously provided
approximately 10-11,000 jobs; and preventing an existing developed area to deteriorate and become
a blight location within the community. The benefits of the project are those positive values and new
facilities that would not be made available to the community without this project's development. The
project benefits outlined below were considered by the City Mayor and Common Council in
performing the balancing test with those unavoidable significant adverse impacts presented earlier in
this document.
The economic benefits of the project,jobs and transfer of the federal property to property tax and
sales tax producing status, will provide a core economic base which will promote the development
of secondary manufacturing, transportation and service firms in San Bernardino. The expansion of
secondary businesses can lead to a renaissance among these industries and, through diversifying the
City economic base, the City will have greater flexibility in developing social, cultural, and community
development programs in order to increase the quality of life for residents.
1. Benefits
a. The proposed project will add approximately 11,000,000 square feet of business uses to the
community base and replace the approximately 11,000 lost military jobs with an estimated
27,000 permanent, primary jobs to the local economy over a 20-40 year period. Indirectly,
as many as 40,900 are forecast to be generated by the primary jobs at the project site.
b. The permanent effect on the local economy is estimated to be the addition of approximately
$1,026,000,000 per year of direct salaries and a total of $2,370,000,000 from total
employment growth related to successful implementation of the proposed project..
40
C. During construction of the project an estimated $984,140,000 million will be spent in the local
economy for buildings and infrastructure, on- and offsite. An estimated 500 employees per
year over the 40-year period will be directly or indirectly employed each year based on the
estimated construction expenditures for the project each year.
d. Demolition of existing buildings will remove obstacles to the effective reuse of the project site
and will eliminate potential blight from old, unreusable structures and infrastructure.
e. The City benefits from the elimination of the industrial blight that currently exists on the
project site. This currently unproductive military land will be returned to positive use that will
benefit the community by providing jobs and serving as an integral component of the
community, particularly the adjacent developed areas.
f. Successful development and expansion of uses within the IVDA Specific Plan area will serve
as a key building block in the City's ability to attract businesses to the area. The lack of traffic
congestion, combined with the ability to ship by air from San Bernardino International
Airport, creates the essential infrastructure required to attract new business to the area.
g. Air quality will benefit in two ways from the proposed project: the jobs/housing balance is a
key component in meeting the Air Quality Attainment Plan and Growth Management Plans
for the South Coast Air Basin and the jobs/housing ratio for the City of San Bernardino will
be enhanced by the forecast 27,000 jobs directly created and 67,900 jobs created overall in
the community; and an unquantifiable emission benefit is derived from reducing the total
vehicle miles traveled by employees working at the project site.
h. Redevelopment and reuse of the closed military base under the Specific Plan will prevent its
deterioration and slide into a blighted area of the City.
H. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and to determine
whether the project related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the project benefits
when the two are compared and balanced. As outlined in Section E above, the IVDA's San
Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Project would produce unavoidable significant
impacts in three environmental categories: construction and operation air quality and cumulative noise
along existing roads.
The City of San Bernardino Mayor and Common Council finds that the previously stated benefits of
the San Bernardino International Trade Center Specific Plan Project, contained in the proposed action
and as conditioned by the City, outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects
to air quality and noise that have been outlined above. In a region where unemployment hovers near
10%; where the ability to attract new business and jobs has been harmed by a prolonged recession
and limited industrial growth; and where industrial blight has diminished the City's ability to attract
41
new industry; the Mayor and Common Council finds that the proposed project's contributions to
jobs, to the local economy, and to the City's ability to attract new industrial growth outweigh the
effects of air emissions; and outweigh the limited noise exposure areas that already experience high
noise because of the proximity between residential and transportation uses.
The Mayor and Common Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of
the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to
insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable
impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed three alternatives to determine whether they are
reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate
the three significant impacts of the proposed action. The EIR presents evidence that implementing
the proposed Project will cause significant adverse impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated
to insignificant levels. These significant impacts have been outlined above and the Mayor and
Common Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or
identified for implementation by the City or other Responsible Agencies.
The Mayor and Common Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial as outlined in Section
G of this document and summarized above and that these benefits justify overriding the unavoidable
significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. This finding is supported by the fact
that many of the benefits listed above derive from initiating a major business activity in the San
Bernardino area, i.e., office, commercial, industrial and international trade issues. Other major
infrastructure improvements will benefit the community surrounding the project site, including
enhanced flood control facilities and road improvements as outlined in the EIR. The Mayor and
Common Council further finds that these benefits, when balanced against the three unavoidable
significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values which
accrue to the City of San Bernardino as outlined in Section G of this document.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the Mayor and Common Council has reviewed
the project definition in the EIR and Section A of this document, and fully understands the project
proposed by the IVDA for the Specific Plan Project. Further, the Mayor and Common Council finds
that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these
impacts have been identified in the EIR, public comment, and public testimony. These impacts and
mitigation measures are discussed in Sections D.1, D.2 and E and the Mayor and Common Council
concurs with the facts and findings contained in those sections. The Mayor and Common Council
also finds that a reasonable range of alternatives was considered in the EIR and this document
(Section F) and that no feasible alternatives which substantially lessen project impacts are available
for adoption.
The Mayor and Common Council concur with the eight identified economic and social benefits which
will result from implementing the proposed project. The Mayor and Common Council have balanced
these substantial social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of
the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City
from approving the Specific Plan Project, the Mayor and Common Council find that the benefits
identified herein outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and hereby override these
unavoidable environmental effects to obtain the economic and social benefits listed in Section G.
42
a LL
is vKvad'(d c �
c
We a
s c
o
Li
� E �
I c
a
3Ad C
VrdOJOIA
0
a
0
� a
3Ad
'JKMR.LS
t OIHON
da dSOd'BG
m >
xLSd >=
>::> ::::<;>;
T
xa
9Ad HONVD3ddLL
F >
a
F V2 .�
cn y ° : a
r
z c,
z w o
z
0
.._....................
v
Q2i dN3I w
a Z
General Plan Text Amendment
1. Amend Table 4 Addendum, General Plan Land Use Categories, Page I-30.
Category Location Principal Uses Intensity/Density
International Contiguous to the O f f i c e FAR .40 (Note:
Trade Center San Bernardino Commercial light The Specific Plan
ITC International industrial and includes various
Airport ancillary uses land use districts
z with FAR 's
ranging as high as
0.5, depending
upon location).
2. Amend Issue Four: What Should Be the Future Role and Character Of Former Norton
Air Force Base By Adding the Following Objective.
Objective International Trade Center
It shall be the Objective of the City of San Bernardino to:
1.39.2 Promote the development and reuse of that portion of the former Norton Air Force .
Base not included in the Airport designation as an International Trade Center
with office, commercial, research and development and industrial land uses as
expeditiously as possible.
Policies
Permitted Uses
1.39.2.10 The International Trade Center Specific Plan defines the permitted uses, land use
relationships and internal circulation standards necessary to accommodate the
projected mix of office, commercial, research and development, industrial and
ancillary uses (11.4).
1.39.2.11 The reuse of existing buildings will be encouraged to the extent feasible to
facilitate the rapid replacement of jobs lost when the former Norton Air Force
Base closed (11.4).
Density/Intensity and Height
1.39.2.20 The maximum land use intensity of development permitted in the International
Attachment G
C
Trade Center Specific Plan shall be defined by a series of Floor Area Ratios
(FAR's) ranging from .25 to .50 in the various individual land use districts. The
overall Trade Center FAR is projected at .40 (11.1, 11.4).
1.39.221 The maximum height of structures shall be governed by the Federal Aviation
Regulations, Part 77. The maximum building height shall not exceed one hundred
(100) feet except when required for other technical reasons, such as
communication towers, or when the additional height will contribute to the
objectives of an overall development plan (H.1, 11.4).
Design and Development Standards
1.40.30 The specific plan includes design and development standards to meet the unique
z
requirements of the site including the provision for reuse and/or interim use of
existing buildings as well as new development (11.4).
1.40.31 Special road standards are included in the Specific Plan to maximize retention of
assets such as existing tree rows (11.4).
1.40.32 Design and development standards will focus on providing the Trade Center a
unique identity and "sense of Place" and will include setbacks, landscaping,
parking, signage, entry monumentation, reuse of existing buildings, etc. (11.4).
5th ST
C7
'a W
w¢
F
3rd ST
: :: z
: F...........:...:...::::::::::::::::.
;:"�•1fIMltYMMYIYMIIX .,':•LLB
I RIALTO ST < :> ::.•1►.; •;>: �: :<::zz:>::: :.!Z
:;
:1::: 555:;:<:: :::::: ::i:i•F >; :;�
i::is i::::is22:i:. � �r>::;:?::::;?.i:�:�:.:'<2:;:.;:.
'a�:::. :: :::::::::
i
...... .�.. .. SHEPPARD BLVD :::::;:<.:•;;:
;;:...:#<•::iiii::i i::ii::is »::;: ::: :::�::::i::::::::>::::::::::-::r:•>:•:t•::•:>-
a:::::;:>.::::; >:: ::::::::: :::::::2:: a
c; :•...a
# 55>:>:> Qii::>:::: :::;: ::::>:1:55:::::::55::5:55::::::::::•
::;::::: :::ii:::`:Sr`�r:;: :::�i::::ScY:::::::`.:::::::5:::::::::: •;:�:
:::
Q 2:iiiii:il>� � :::is2:i::11:::�:;_:;::t: ;:<i;:i:;:1;:1:::::�:;::;:iiiilif::;:i:;i::�: ::.::::::::•:::::,::::•>:�:-::�:�:�>:;:•:......
:.:::.�:::.• :::::::�1::::::1:::;2::2::�::5:;:::$::;:555:<:::>; ::�:-.;-.
•...<v::i• :i?'{:;:l;iiiiii:�iii:4:i2:iiiiii iii:4'f.::.is
•i:: �+rti�:^T:4i:2!JF:i1i
:Ti}:` :i;;2_:)$i iiiiri�l?{:2::�:2:;:1111:v:;2::i2 ;:11i:2:�:'i11i::i;;ii 55;i:;:�•ii11:?2?•:: �
¢ •:::�.�::::•::•}:•;•::•i:•i:�::?:«•}:•:•;;�;.;iiii::i:vi:•ii:-:�iY•i::vi:'i;;�:i •;;.::; ::•i: ii::'::::'
5511 ::11;:.:?:_i:i
z :1:2:iij1 i::11:2'_+111?iiY::i:i::i:<:i::i: i4 ::::i:ii:` ?i;}::::1;11:1:?
I
a
i }
;::1:::1::1-;:•::;•:•:�;;;:�:•::.
.....
rrr
MILL ST
W'
W
O
z�
d
U
w
a
a
F
CENTRAL AVE
LEGEND:
Project Site
Major Arterial
Secondary Arterial
——— Proposed Major Arterial
•••••■•• Proposed Secondary/Collector
11/13/95(TOJ401)
N
Attachment H
L Sh No Scale
General Plan Roadway Changes
EXHIBIT 4
Traffic Impact Analysis Resolution
e
EXHIBIT 5
Specific Plan Ordinance
EXHIBIT 7
C & B Enterprises r n
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS GROUP ;,j 4'4� i !,�
3808 Osbun Road s 1 1 Y 3 �`
San Bernardino, California 92404 1 ' E E ��
Phones: (714) 883-2435 M�t4T OF?tANNS:
pEP s�a dO &
AR'
February 12, 1W6 ��,��s
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 North 'D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Subject: Norton Spedfic Pan
Mayor and Council Members:
During Tim Sabo's preserrtation of the Norton Spodfla Pan to the City Pia vft
Commission he presented a twenty to forty year build-out scenario for the redevelopmmyt
of Norton. I consider that time frame to be reasonable and recognize the potential for
InWrIm uses of bulk0ngs which are not part of the long range plan. It Is
not cost effective to remove buildings now when no new sbuchme is proposed.
The Pan recommends 'hotels and moteW east of Del Rosa only. The proposed Plan
does not provide for the temporary use of residential dorm buildings west of Del Rosa In
the northerly portion of the pmjed area.
I am pursuing two ideas for several of the two-story dorm buildings. I have discussed
one of the ideas with Bill Bopf. I work In a competitive buffs environment and
therefore it is inappropriate to discuss the details of my Ideas at this tune. I believe some
of these bum can now be used until the time that job growth In the valley stimulates
redevelopment of the property.
I recormrend that the Spwft Pan include a provision for temporary business such as;
hotels, motels and multi-family residential through a Conditional Use PermIL The process
will afford the opportunity to analyze a proposal with regards to its compatibility with
adjacent uses and its' W with the long range development plan. Some rent Is better
than no rent. Some activity Is better than no activity.
Shvx erely,
Couufi'tey
F�IBuse
cc: Boughey, Director of Pan g